2019 Ohio 2767
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On September 25, 2018 Carl J. Danison petitioned for an ex parte civil stalking protection order (CSPO) under R.C. 2903.214 on behalf of his minor child, R.D.; the court granted ex parte relief on Sept. 26, 2018.
- A full hearing was held November 6, 2018; on November 14, 2018 a magistrate issued a three-year CSPO against Matthew Blinco and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s order the same day.
- Blinco did not file written objections to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision within the 14‑day period provided by Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d).
- Blinco appealed on December 6, 2018, raising three assignments of error: (1) the court considered hearsay; (2) insufficient evidence that Blinco engaged in a knowing pattern causing belief of harm or mental distress under R.C. 2903.211/2903.214; and (3) the trial court failed to make findings of fact supporting the CSPO.
- The Court of Appeals first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider the merits given the failure to file timely objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/preservation under Civ.R. 65.1(G) | Danison: the order is final and appealable; Civ.R. 65.1(G) does not make objections jurisdictional but requires them to preserve issues | Blinco: appealed without filing objections to magistrate adoption | Court: Blinco’s failure to timely object waived his arguments; the court has jurisdiction but will not reach the merits because objections were required to preserve error |
| Hearsay considered at CSPO hearing | Danison: evidence presented supported the CSPO (no separate brief on hearsay dispute in opinion) | Blinco: trial court erred by relying on inadmissible hearsay when granting CSPO | Held: Not reached on the merits due to waiver by failure to object |
| Sufficiency of evidence under R.C. 2903.214 (pattern, knowing conduct, belief of harm/mental distress) | Danison: presented evidence at hearing proving statutory elements for issuance on behalf of minor | Blinco: evidence did not establish a knowing pattern causing R.D. to believe he would cause physical harm or mental distress | Held: Not reached on the merits due to waiver by failure to object |
| Trial court findings of fact | Danison: adoption of magistrate’s order was proper; no additional finding rule triggered | Blinco: court failed to make specific findings of fact supporting CSPO | Held: Not reached on the merits due to waiver by failure to object |
Key Cases Cited
- No officially reported cases (with public reporter citations) were cited in the opinion. The court relied primarily on Civ.R. 65.1 and several Ohio appellate unreported decisions addressing the effect of failing to file objections under Civ.R. 65.1.