2019 Ohio 2356
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On October 10, 2018, Casey Runkle filed a petition for a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) against her ex‑boyfriend, Jack Stewart, alleging physical assaults, a cut to her finger, and threats.
- A magistrate held an ex parte hearing the same day and issued an ex parte DVCPO.
- On October 17, 2018, after a full evidentiary hearing at which both parties testified pro se, the magistrate denied the petition and terminated the ex parte DVCPO, finding Runkle lacked credibility and that she failed to prove Stewart was the aggressor.
- The trial judge reviewed and adopted the magistrate’s order. Runkle later filed a handwritten statement she labeled as a notice of appeal and submitted photographs of injuries.
- Runkle did not file written objections in the trial court to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days as required by Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i) and the July 2016 amendment to Civ.R. 65.1(G).
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding that failure to timely file objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G) bars appellate review of the trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s DVCPO decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant may appeal the trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s denial of a DVCPO without first filing objections in the trial court under Civ.R. 65.1(G) | Runkle treated her handwritten statement as a notice of appeal and submitted additional evidence, asking the court to reconsider the DVCPO denial | Implicitly: the appeal is procedurally improper because Runkle did not file the required written objections in the trial court within the 14‑day window | The appeal was barred: because Runkle failed to file timely objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G), the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment |