In re A.R.K., 2016 Ohio 8028

In Jan. 2014, paternal grandparents obtained temporary custody of minor A.R.K.; a magistrate issued an April 7, 2014 order stating Jackson‑Milton Local School District was financially responsible for A.R.K.’s education based on an address listed as 135 Market Street, Lake Milton, and noting the Department of Education could redetermine the matter.
Legal custody was later awarded to the grandparents on June 25, 2014 (a final, appealable judgment).
July 2014: Cuyahoga Falls Schools asked the court which district bore educational costs because the zip code covered multiple districts; the magistrate forwarded the April 7th order to Cuyahoga Falls.
Sept. 2014: Jackson‑Milton moved to intervene and to vacate/amend the April 7th order, arguing the listed address did not exist and disputing reliance on a hearsay letter; the magistrate denied relief and directed re‑determination to the Ohio Department of Education; Jackson‑Milton filed no objections or appeal.
Oct. 2015: Jackson‑Milton again moved to vacate/amend the April 7th and Sept. 2014 orders after an unsuccessful re‑determination request to the Department of Education; the trial court issued an Nov. 5, 2015 entry upholding the original determination and reiterating that further challenges belong to the Department of Education.
Jackson‑Milton appealed only the Nov. 5, 2015 entry, arguing the court erred by not holding a hearing to definitively determine the responsible school district.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on which district must pay for A.R.K.’s education	Jackson‑Milton: court admitted prior determination was questionable; court should hold evidentiary hearing to determine correct district	Trial court: further re‑determination authority lies with Ohio Dept. of Education; prior magistrate order limited court authority	Court did not reach the merits; it vacated the Nov. 5, 2015 entry as void because Jackson‑Milton’s 2015 filing was, in substance, a motion to reconsider a final judgment and thus a nullity

Harkai v. Scherba Indus., 136 Ohio App.3d 211 (9th Dist. 2000) (distinguishing final appealability of orders)