Campbell v. Campbell
2021 Ohio 2045
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- Nichole and Stephen Campbell divorced in 2012. Post-divorce disputes over parental rights for their minor child led to motions beginning in 2017 and a multi-day magistrate trial in early 2018.
- The magistrate issued a decision on November 16, 2018, which the trial court adopted the same day. Stephen later filed a "motion to set aside" that decision but failed to follow Civ.R. 53 procedures for objections.
- The trial court dismissed Stephen’s attempt to challenge the magistrate’s decision (April 30, 2019) and denied his later motion for an extension to file objections (May 21, 2019). Stephen then filed objections without a transcript; the court dismissed them as untimely and unsupported (July 23, 2019).
- Between September 2019 and February 2020 Stephen filed numerous pro se motions (e.g., disqualify magistrate/judge, strike pleadings, remove GAL, quash/compel subpoenas, new trial). The court heard argument on February 10, 2020 (no sworn testimony) and denied the motions in a February 11, 2020 entry.
- Stephen appealed, raising 12 assignments of error alleging magistrate/judge misconduct, evidentiary errors, discovery abuses, and legal error. The Tenth District affirmed, primarily on jurisdictional and procedural grounds: (1) many assignments attacked a judgment not identified in the notice of appeal, and (2) on the merits Stephen failed to timely object and failed to provide a transcript as required by Civ.R. 53.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nichole) | Defendant's Argument (Stephen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate’s Nov. 16, 2018 decision | The trial court properly adopted the magistrate; Stephen failed to timely and properly object under Civ.R. 53 | The magistrate abused discretion, ignored evidence, violated rules, and the adoption was erroneous | Court lacked jurisdiction to review those assignments (they did not relate to the Feb. 11, 2020 judgment). On the merits, even if reviewable, they fail: objections untimely and unsupported by transcript, so factual findings are binding absent plain error |
| Whether the trial judge engaged in misconduct (forged/unauthorized signature; altered record; ordering employment; comments about vexatious litigation) | Judge acted within discretion; comments did not affect the motions decided Feb. 11, 2020 | Judge admitted signature was forged/invalid, altered record, improperly ordered employment and commented prejudicially | Most allegations related to other proceedings and thus were not properly before the court; the single comment cited did not show prejudice to the motions decided and assignments are overruled |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying Stephen’s February 2020 pro se motions (disqualification, sanctions, removal of GAL, discovery relief) | Motions were meritless or procedurally deficient; court properly denied them | Court abused discretion and should have granted relief (various specific claims) | Court affirmed denial: Stephen offered no new transcript/evidence; many claims attack prior adopted magistrate decision (not the appealed entry) and were procedurally barred |
| Whether procedural defaults (failure to timely object; failure to provide transcript; App.R.16 briefing defects) bar Stephen’s appellate claims | Procedural defaults do not cure substantive errors; appellate court should review to prevent injustice | Procedural rules were not followed; App.R.16 and Civ.R.53 violations bar relief | Appellate court enforces procedural rules: objections were untimely, no transcript was supplied, and App.R.16 briefing defects noted; no plain error shown, so assignments overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- None — the opinion relied primarily on unpublished/administrative appellate decisions and procedural rules (Civ.R. 53; App.R. 3, 12, 16) rather than officially reported cases.