2020 Ohio 4971
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- N.S. filed a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) petition against E.J. on May 24, 2019; the court denied an ex parte order and set a full hearing.
- Full hearing occurred July 11 and 22, 2019; both parties (and a third-party respondent A.E.) appeared with counsel; the magistrate took the matter under advisement.
- Magistrate concluded N.S. failed to prove by a preponderance that E.J. engaged in conduct causing her to believe he would cause physical harm or mental distress; denied the CSPO and dismissed under Civ.R. 41(B)(1).
- N.S. timely filed objections and asked for 30 days to file a hearing transcript but did not file the transcript or request an extension; trial court sustained only her objection to the Civ.R. 41(B)(1) dismissal and otherwise adopted the magistrate’s findings.
- On appeal N.S. raised two legal assignments of error: (1) the magistrate allegedly required proof of both threat/fear of physical harm and mental distress to obtain a CSPO under R.C. 2903.211(A); and (2) alleged unauthorized bank withdrawals constitute conduct covered by the menacing-by-stalking statute.
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding N.S. failed to present those arguments to the trial court (and failed to file the required transcript), so the appellate court would not reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (N.S.) | Defendant's Argument (E.J.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate required proof of both a threat of (or fear of) physical harm and mental distress to obtain a CSPO under R.C. 2903.211(A) | Magistrate erroneously required proof of both elements rather than the statutory standard | Magistrate applied correct standard and found N.S. did not meet her burden | Overruled — appellate court refused to reach the merits because N.S. did not raise this issue in timely objections to the trial court |
| Whether unauthorized withdrawals from N.S.’s bank account constitute conduct covered by the menacing-by-stalking statute (R.C. 2903.211) | Unauthorized charges are criminal conduct that fits within the statute’s scope | Such conduct is not the type of menacing-by-stalking conduct the statute addresses | Overruled — appellate court declined to address the merits because the argument was not preserved below and transcript was not filed |
| Whether N.S.’s failure to file a transcript and to raise these legal arguments in objections precludes appellate review | N.S. requested 30 days for the transcript and filed objections | Trial court: evidentiary objections require a transcript; failure to file transcript/raise issues in objections prevents review | Held for the court/trial court: failure to timely file the transcript and failure to raise these issues in objections bars consideration on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- None — the opinion did not rely on any officially reported judicial decisions; it cited local Ninth District (unreported) decisions and applied Civil Rule 65.1 and related procedural authorities.