Ramoso v. Ramoso , 2014 Ohio 281 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Ramoso v. Ramoso, 2014-Ohio-281.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
ANTHONY RAMOSO C.A. No. 26948
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
ROSEMARY RAMOSO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 2011-06-1882
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: January 29, 2014
WHITMORE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Rosemary Ramoso aka Rosemary Chickos (“Wife”),
appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division. This Court affirms.
I
{¶2} Wife and Plaintiff-Appellee, Anthony Ramoso (“Husband”), were married in
September 2000. In June 2011, Husband filed a complaint for divorce without children. Wife
answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for divorce. A trial was held before a
magistrate over the course of several days and, on March 4, 2013, the magistrate issued a lengthy
decision. The trial court entered judgment on the magistrate’s decision the same day.
{¶3} On March 18, 2013, Wife filed her objections to the magistrate’s decision.
Subsequently, on March 27, 2013, Wife filed a praecipe to the court reporter, requesting a
transcript of the trial. Husband filed a response, asking the court to dismiss Wife’s objections
2
because she had failed to file a praecipe with the court reporter at the time she filed her
objections, pursuant to Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Court,
Local Rule 27.04(C). The trial court, relying upon Local Rule 27.04, dismissed Wife’s
objections because she had failed to pay a deposit of costs to secure a transcript of the
proceedings.
{¶4} Wife now appeals from the trial court’s judgment and raises a single assignment
of error for our review.
II
Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPELLANT’S
OBJECTION WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING WITH A SUA SPONTE
RULING THAT DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS.
{¶5} In her sole assignment of error, Wife argues that her due process rights were
offended when the trial court dismissed her objections without notice or a hearing. We disagree.
{¶6} An objection to the factual finding of a magistrate, “whether or not specifically
designated as a finding of fact * * *, shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence
submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). “The duty to
provide a transcript or affidavit to the trial court rests with the person objecting to the
magistrate’s decision.” Swartz v. Swartz, 9th Dist. Medina No. 11CA0057-M, 2011-Ohio-6685,
¶ 8. Local Rule 27.04 provides, in relevant part:
(B) All objections shall be specific and state the grounds of objection with
particularity. Any objection to a finding of fact shall be supported by a transcript
of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that fact or an affidavit
of that evidence if a transcript is not available.
(C) If a transcript is required, a praecipe to the court reporter requesting a
transcript of the proceedings must be delivered to and acknowledged by the court
reporter for the assigned judge and filed with the Clerk of Courts at the time of
3
filing the objection * * *. If a praecipe to the court reporter is not filed at the time
of filing the objection, and the objection is to any fact found by the magistrate, the
objection may be overruled.
(D) A deposit of costs to secure the transcript must be paid to the assigned court
reporter within 14 days of the filing of the objection and praecipe to court
reporter. If the deposit for the costs of a transcript is not made within 14 days of
the filing of the objection and the praecipe to court reporter, the objection may be
overruled.
Wife does not challenge the propriety of Loc.R. 27.04 or dispute that she failed to comply with
the rule. See App.R. 16(A)(7). Instead, she argues that a court must give notice and hold a
hearing prior to a dismissal under the foregoing rule.
{¶7} This Court previously has rejected the same argument that Wife now asserts. In
Argenziano v. Argenziano, 9th Dist. Medina No. 10CA0116-M, 2012-Ohio-1447, we rejected the
argument that an appellant’s due process rights had been offended when the trial court overruled
his Civ.R. 53 objections without first affording him notice and holding a hearing. Argenziano at
¶ 8-11. There, we held that the Civil Rules do not “impute a notice and hearing requirement in
regard to objections [to a magistrate’s decision].” Id. at ¶ 9. We further held that, because the
appellant had “received notice and an opportunity to be heard at the hearing before the
magistrate regarding the complaint for divorce * * *, he was properly accorded due process prior
to any potential deprivation of his property interests.” Id. at ¶ 10. We rejected the appellant’s
argument, which was not supported by any authority, that his due process rights were violated
when the domestic relations court reviewed the record and overruled his objections without a
hearing. Id.
{¶8} Much like the appellant in Argenziano, Wife “cites no legal authority in support
of [her] argument that a trial court may not rule on objections to a magistrate’s decision in the
absence of an oral hearing on the matter.” Id. at ¶ 9. Moreover, Wife makes no claim that she
4
did, in fact, comply with the lower court’s local rule regarding the filing of a praecipe and a
deposit of costs to secure a transcript. Having reviewed the record, we must conclude that Wife
has failed to show that the trial court erred when it disposed of her objections. Id. at ¶ 8-10.
Wife’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III
{¶9} Wife’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
5
MOORE, P. J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
W. LOVE II, Attorney, at Law, for Appellant.
JAMES M. CAMPBELL and JULIET K. FALCONE, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.