Godwin v. Godwin , 2014 Ohio 3963 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Godwin v. Godwin, 2014-Ohio-3963.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
Joel D. Godwin Court of Appeals No. WD-14-025
Appellee Trial Court No. 2011 DR 034
v.
Jean R. Godwin DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 12, 2014
*****
Bruce B. Stevens, for appellant.
*****
YARBROUGH, P.J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} This is an accelerated appeal from the judgment of the Wood County Court
of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which denied appellant’s, Jean Godwin,
motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate’s decision. We affirm.
A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Appellant and appellee, Joel Godwin, were divorced on April 20, 2012.
They have one child together. On December 20, 2012, appellant filed both a motion for
reallocation of parental rights and a show cause motion. On January 25, 2013, appellee
also moved for a reallocation of parental rights. In addition, appellee later filed a show
cause motion and a motion for sanctions.
{¶ 3} All of the motions were heard by the magistrate on February 18, 2014. After
the hearing, the magistrate’s decision was filed on February 24, 2014. The decision
contained a notice that,
Each party has the right to object to the Magistrate’s Decision within
fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Decision. If any party timely files
objections, any other party may also file objections no later than ten (10)
days after the first objections are filed.
A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of
any finding of fact or conclusion of law in this decision unless the party
timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by
Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b). (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 4} The magistrate’s decision also ordered appellee’s attorney to prepare a
judgment entry reflecting the decision. No objections to the magistrate’s decision were
filed.
2.
{¶ 5} On March 11, 2014, the trial court entered its judgment entry, prepared by
appellee’s attorney, affirming the magistrate’s decision. Fourteen days later, on
March 25, 2014, appellant filed her preliminary objections to the magistrate’s decision,
and requested an extension of time to file additional objections once a transcript of the
proceedings had been filed. Appellant also moved to stay the judgment pending the
resolution of her objections.
{¶ 6} In a March 28, 2014 entry, the trial court denied appellant’s motions, finding
that appellant’s objections were not filed timely.
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 7} Appellant has appealed the March 28, 2014 judgment entry, and now
presents two assignments of error for our review:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT
APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED HER OBJECTIONS TIMELY WHERE
APPELLANT FILED HER OBJECTIONS WITHIN 14 DAYS OF WHEN
THE ENTRY WAS FILED WITH THE COURT AFTER THE
MAGISTRATE DIRECTED COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE TO SUBMIT
THE ENTRY TO THE COURT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT AN
EQUAL TIME SHARE ARRANGEMENT WAS IN THE MINOR
CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS.
3.
II. Analysis
{¶ 8} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the 14-day time limit,
in which to file objections to the magistrate’s decision, does not begin to run until the
magistrate’s decision is adopted and journalized by the trial court. We disagree.
{¶ 9} Civ.R. 53(D) reveals a multi-step process regarding magistrate decisions.
First, the matter is referred to the magistrate. Civ.R. 53(D)(1). The magistrate then hears
the issue and prepares a magistrate’s decision. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a). Finally, the
magistrate’s decision is not effective until adopted by the trial court in a judgment entry
or interim order. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a) and (e).
{¶ 10} At issue here is the appropriate timing for filing objections to the
magistrate’s decision. To that end, Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) provides, in relevant part,
“A party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the
filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that
fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).”
{¶ 11} A plain reading of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) reveals that the appropriate time to
file objections to the magistrate’s decision is within 14 days of the filing of the
magistrate’s decision, not within 14 days of the trial court’s entry approving the decision.
Here, the magistrate’s decision was filed on February 24, 2014. The decision notified the
parties that they then had 14 days to file objections. Nevertheless, appellant did not file
her objections to the decision until March 25, 2014. Thus, her objections were not
timely. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion,
4.
which contained preliminary objections and requested an extension of time to file
additional objections.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 13} In her second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred
in its adoption of the magistrate’s determination on the merits of the show cause motions
and the motions for reallocation of parental rights. However, Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv)
provides, “Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the
court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion * * * unless the party has
objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Here,
appellant has not claimed plain error. Therefore, appellant has waived her right to assign
the adoption of the magistrate’s findings as error on appeal. Foos v. Foos, 6th Dist.
Wood No. WD-08-049, 2009-Ohio-3398, ¶ 16.
{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Wood County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay
the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
5.
Godwin v. Godwin
C.A. No. WD-14-025
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.
6.