E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M., 2025 Ohio 2946

The case arises from a divorce and child custody proceeding between E.A.K.M. (Father) and M.A.M. (Mother) in Ohio, where significant guardian ad litem (GAL) fees accrued.
The original divorce action, filed in 2019, was dismissed without prejudice at Mother's request just before trial; all pending motions, including GAL fee requests, were dismissed as moot.
The parties soon refiled the divorce case, and a motion to preserve prior orders was initially granted, then vacated by the court.
The GAL, Peter Kirner, filed for payment covering both the dismissed and current actions, citing substantial unpaid fees; the trial court ordered both parties to pay their share.
Father appealed, challenging the order to pay fees from the dismissed case; the appellate court initially dismissed for lack of finality, later reconsidered, then vacated the trial court’s fee order on grounds it was immediately appealable.
The Ohio Supreme Court was asked to decide whether such a fee order is immediately appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B).

Issue	Father's Argument	Kirner's Argument	Held
Is a pretrial GAL fee order in a pending divorce immediately appealable as a final order?	Fee order from prior (dismissed) case affects substantial rights and should be immediately appealable to avoid losing meaningful relief.	Such orders are interlocutory, do not affect a substantial right, and are not immediately appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2).	Not immediately appealable; must wait for final judgment.

Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (OH 1993) (defines when an interlocutory order affects a substantial right)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (categorical approach to appealability; individualized balancing disfavored)
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (discourages piecemeal appeals in the interest of judicial administration)
Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1985) (warns against undermining finality rule for interesting merits)