Background - Wife filed for divorce in Ohio, alleging statutory residency; husband counterclaimed and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 3105.03/Civ.R. 12(B)(1). - Magistrate denied husband's military-related continuance/stay requests, granted his motion to dismiss (finding wife lacked the required physical residency), and vacated temporary support orders. - Wife objected to the magistrate’s decision; husband filed no cross-objection. - Trial court determined wife had physically resided in Ohio for 94 days but nonetheless sustained wife’s objection, concluded she retained Ohio domicile while living with husband on military orders out of state, vacated the magistrate’s dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings. - Husband appealed the trial-court order arguing it was final and appealable; the appellate court considered whether it had jurisdiction under R.C. 2505.02(B). ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Griffin) | Defendant's Argument (James Griffin) | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether the trial court order vacating magistrate’s dismissal and remanding is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) | N/A (wife prevailed below; primary dispute is jurisdiction of appeal) | The order affects a substantial right because it reverses dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and thus is immediately appealable | Not final under (B)(1); denial/vacatur of dismissal does not determine the action or prevent judgment and is generally not final | | Whether the order is final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) as an order "made in a special proceeding" affecting a substantial right (divorce = special proceeding) | The order affects substantial right to have case decided by a court of competent jurisdiction (residency issue) | The order does not foreclose appropriate relief later; error can be raised after final judgment | Not final under (B)(2); court overruled prior First District precedent (Rijo) and joined other districts holding such orders are not final | | Whether the order is final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) as to a provisional remedy | N/A | The order resolves a jurisdictional threshold and thus is effectively dispositive of a provisional remedy | Not final under (B)(4); court found the third statutory requirement (no meaningful remedy after final judgment) not satisfied, so (B)(4) does not apply | ### Key Cases Cited State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 79 Ohio St.3d 543 (1997) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction over nonfinal orders) Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (final-judgment requirement for appellate jurisdiction) State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Titanium Metals Corp., 108 Ohio St.3d 540 (2006) (denial of motion to dismiss generally not final) Polikoff v. Adam, 67 Ohio St.3d 100 (1993) (order denying dismissal typically not final under R.C. 2505.02) Wilhelm-Kissinger v. Kissinger, 129 Ohio St.3d 90 (2011) (divorce is a special proceeding under R.C. Chapter 3105) Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (1993) ("affects a substantial right" means denial of immediate appeal would foreclose appropriate future relief) Lonigro v. Lonigro, 55 Ohio App.3d 30 (1988) (order denying jurisdictional dismissal in divorce not final) Haskins v. Haskins, 104 Ohio App.3d 58 (1995) (same conclusion on final-order issue in divorce proceedings)