Harris v. Delong , 2018 Ohio 2493 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Harris v. Delong, 2018-Ohio-2493.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    David M. Harris,                                    :
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                :
    No. 17AP-676
    v.                                                  :             (C.P.C. No. 17JU-3714)
    Ashley L. Delong,                                   :       (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
    Defendant-Appellee.                 :
    D E C I S I O N
    Rendered on June 26, 2018
    On brief: David M. Harris, pro se.
    APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
    Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch
    HORTON, J.
    {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, David M. Harris, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin
    County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, which
    dismissed his complaint for an allocation of parental rights. For the following reasons, we
    dismiss the appeal.
    I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    {¶ 2} On March 20, 2017, appellant filed a complaint against Ashley L. Delong
    seeking an allocation of parental rights/custody of the parties' daughter, born on
    February 10, 2011. According to appellant's brief, the parties had a tumultuous relationship,
    at one time they were engaged to be married, and the relationship ended in a physical fight
    and domestic violence charges. Appellant alleges that Delong made false allegations against
    him involving violations of probation.
    No. 17AP-676                                                                                  2
    {¶ 3} On June 29, 2017, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem ("GAL") and
    ordered the parties to each deposit $400 into the GAL's trust account by July 28, 2017.
    After a continuance, the matter was set for a hearing on August 30, 2017. On September 6,
    2017, the magistrate filed a decision and entry indicating that appellant appeared but had
    a warrant for his arrest and was taken into custody by the sheriff. The GAL appeared and
    indicated that appellant had not paid his fees as required by July 28, 2017 and appellant
    had been unable to schedule a home visit prior to the hearing. The magistrate dismissed
    the matter without prejudice. The trial court adopted the decision and judgment entry on
    the same day.
    II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    {¶ 4} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and raised the following assignments
    of error for our review:
    I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSAL OF CASE DUE
    TO MR. DAVID M. HARRIS'S ABSENCE DUE TO MISS
    DELONG MAKING UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OF
    TELEPHONE HARASSMENT AGGIANST [sic] DAVID M.
    HARRIS VIOLAITING [sic] HIS PROBATION AND HAVING
    HIM ARRESTED JUST OUTSIDE THE COURT ROOM.
    II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN STATING THAT MR.
    DAVID M. HARRIS WAS NOT PRESENT, MR. HARRIS HAD
    BEEN DETAINED DUE TO FALSE ALLIGATIONS [sic]
    FROM MISS DELONG AND WAS BROUGHT TO THE
    COURT ROOM BY ARRESTING DEPUTY.
    III. DISCUSSION
    {¶ 5} We must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction to review the
    order which appellant appealed. Ohio appellate courts have jurisdiction to review only final,
    appealable orders of lower courts within their districts. Ohio Constitution, Article IV,
    Section 3(B)(2); R.C. 2501.01. If an order is not a final, appealable order, the appellate court
    lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Prod. Credit Assn. v. Hedges, 87 Ohio
    App.3d 207 (4th Dist.1993), fn 2. Appellate courts are tasked with the duty to sua sponte
    examine any deficiencies in jurisdiction. Price v. Jillisky, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-801, 2004-
    Ohio-1221.
    No. 17AP-676                                                                               3
    {¶ 6} An appellate court engages in a two-step process when determining whether
    a judgment or order is final and appealable. First, the court must determine whether the
    order is final within the requirements of R.C. 2505.02. Second, if the order satisfies R.C.
    2505.02, the court must determine whether Civ.R. 54(B) applies and, if so, whether the
    order contains a certification that there is no just reason for delay. Nnadi v. Nnadi, 10th
    Dist. No. 15AP-13, 2015-Ohio-3981, ¶ 12, citing Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 
    44 Ohio St. 3d 17
    , 21 (1989).
    {¶ 7} A final order is statutorily defined by R.C. 2505.02, which provides as follows:
    (B) An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed,
    modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one
    of the following:
    (1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that
    in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment;
    (2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special
    proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after
    judgment;
    (3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a
    new trial;
    (4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy * * *;
    (5) An order that determines that an action may or may not
    be maintained as a class action.
    (6) An order determining the constitutionality of any changes
    to the Revised Code made by Am. Sub. 281 of the 124th
    general assembly * * * ;
    (7) An order in an appropriation proceeding that may be
    appealed pursuant to division (B)(3) of section 163.09 of the
    Revised Code.
    {¶ 8} An order of a court is a final appealable order only if the requirements of both
    R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B) are met. Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State
    Univ., 
    44 Ohio St. 3d 86
    (1989), syllabus. However, an order that is not final cannot be
    rendered final merely by the addition of Civ.R. 54(B) language. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio
    No. 17AP-676                                                                                                4
    St.3d 92, 96 (1989); Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. v. BPS Co., 
    4 Ohio App. 3d 3
    , 4 (10th
    Dist.1982).
    {¶ 9} An involuntary dismissal without prejudice typically is not a final, appealable
    order if a party is able to refile within the applicable statute of limitations or pursuant to
    the savings statute. White v. Unknown, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1120, 2010-Ohio-3031, ¶ 6,
    citing Dues v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-943, 2009-Ohio-1668,
    ¶ 9.1 "Generally, a dismissal without prejudice constitutes 'an adjudication otherwise than
    on the merits' with no res judicata bar to refiling the suit" because it places the parties in
    the same position they were in before the plaintiff filed the action. Johnson v. H&M Auto
    Serv., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-123, 2007-Ohio-5794, ¶ 7, quoting Thomas v. Freeman, 79 Ohio
    St.3d 221, 225 (1997), fn. 2. Thus, "a dismissal without prejudice is not a final, appealable
    order, so long as a party may refile or amend a complaint." 
    Id. However, the
    trial court's
    self-determination that it is issuing a final order does not dispose of the final, appealable
    order question. George v. State, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-4, 2010-Ohio-5262, ¶ 11, citing Casey
    v. Reidy, 
    180 Ohio App. 3d 615
    , 2009-Ohio-415 (7th Dist.).
    {¶ 10} Here, the trial court dismissed appellant's complaint without prejudice and
    there is no bar to appellant refiling the complaint. Thus, there is no final, appealable order.
    {¶ 11} Finally, we note that Harris did not file any objections to the magistrate's
    decision. "A party who does not file written objections to a magistrate's decision may not
    raise on appeal issues on the merits that might have been the basis of the objections."
    Brown v. Zurich US, 
    150 Ohio App. 3d 105
    , 2002-Ohio-6099, ¶ 26 (10th Dist.); Civ.R. 53.
    However, since this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal because of a lack of a
    final, appealable order, the failure to file objections is irrelevant.
    {¶ 12} The trial court dismissed the action without prejudice and there is nothing to
    prevent appellant from successfully refiling the action. Thus, as appellant can refile the
    complaint, the trial court's dismissal of the action without prejudice is not a final appealable
    order and we are without jurisdiction to address the assignments of error.
    1 In George v. State, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-4, 2010-Ohio-5262, this court recognized that some dismissals
    without prejudice do constitute final, appealable orders. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a dismissal
    for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted operates as an adjudication on the merits. State
    ex rel. Arcadia Acres v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 
    123 Ohio St. 3d 54
    , 2009-Ohio-4176, ¶ 15. "As a
    result, res judicata bars refiling the claim." George at ¶ 14.
    No. 17AP-676                                                                              5
    IV. CONCLUSION
    {¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, appellant's appeal is dismissed for lack of a final,
    appealable order.
    Appeal dismissed.
    DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
    _________________
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17AP-676

Citation Numbers: 2018 Ohio 2493

Judges: Horton

Filed Date: 6/26/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/26/2018