Meier v. Brian Meier
2017 Ohio 1109
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Stacy Meier and Brian Meier divorced in May 2013 and adopted an agreed shared parenting plan for their minor child.
- In April 2016, Brian filed to reallocate parental rights and an emergency custody motion; the magistrate granted temporary emergency custody to Brian and scheduled a full hearing.
- After a full hearing, the magistrate issued an order (July 25, 2016) continuing the emergency temporary custody in Brian's favor; Stacy subsequently filed her own motion to reallocate and a motion to set aside the magistrate’s order.
- The trial court denied Stacy’s August 4, 2016 motion to set aside in an October 7, 2016 entry, found no error in the magistrate’s factual and legal determinations, and ordered psychological evaluations and a bench trial to address the reallocation motions.
- Stacy appealed the October 7 entry before the scheduled bench trial; the appellate court first considered whether the October 7 order was a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s October 7, 2016 order denying Stacy’s motion to set aside the magistrate’s emergency temporary custody order is a final, appealable order | Stacy argued the order should be reviewable on appeal (challenging the magistrate’s emergency custody ruling) | Brian argued the order was interlocutory and not a final, appealable order | The appellate court held the October 7 order is temporary/interlocutory, not final and appealable, and the court lacked jurisdiction, so the appeal was dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (appellate jurisdiction limited to final orders)
- State ex rel. Hughes v. Celeste, 67 Ohio St.3d 429 (1993) (definition of a substantial right requiring legal protection)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (finality turns on an order's effect on the action, not its label)
- Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (1993) (orders that foreclose appropriate future relief affect substantial rights)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 117 Ohio App.3d 19 (1996) (temporary custody orders are interlocutory and generally not immediately appealable)