Saqr v. Naji
2017 Ohio 8142
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In Feb 2016 Ameera Saqr obtained an ex parte civil protection order (CPO) against her then-husband Selim Naji after an alleged incident; a full hearing was held March 2, 2016 and a full‑hearing CPO issued effective until Feb. 11, 2017.
- The magistrate’s April 2016 order originally named the couple’s minor children as protected persons; the trial court later struck that designation but left the CPO in place.
- Naji filed a motion (Aug. 12, 2016) to terminate the CPO, alleging Saqr had committed fraud by submitting edited audio recordings; hearings on the motion were held in Aug.–Oct. 2016.
- The magistrate denied most of Naji’s proffered evidence as either untimely or collateral attack on adopted factual findings; the magistrate then denied the motion to terminate and the trial court entered a final order leaving the CPO in effect until its original expiration date.
- Naji did not file objections to the magistrate’s denial of his motion but appealed; the court considered whether the failure to object forfeited appellate review in light of Sup.R. Form deficiencies and a mid‑case Civ.R. 65.1 amendment.
- The court held Naji’s challenge to denial of early termination was moot because the CPO expired, and denied relief under Civ.R. 60(B) for alleged fraud because Naji failed to present affidavit‑quality, timely, or outside‑the‑record evidence sufficient to meet the rule’s requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saqr) | Defendant's Argument (Naji) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file objections to the magistrate’s denial forfeits appellate review | Form used did not need additional objections; trial court’s procedures were proper | Naji argued he could raise grounds on appeal despite not filing objections because he received no Civ.R. 53 notice on the form | Court: Form 10.01‑L lacked required Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) notice, so Naji may raise arguments on appeal despite no objections |
| Whether appeal of denial of motion to terminate a CPO is moot after CPO expiration | N/A (respondent moving to terminate) | Naji sought reversal of denial to terminate early | Court: Assignment challenging denial of early termination is moot; terminating early would not erase the original, now‑expired order or collateral consequences |
| Whether Naji is entitled to relief from judgment (Civ.R. 60(B)) for alleged fraud in evidence | N/A | Naji asked relief from judgment (alleging fraud via edited audio) | Court: Denied—Naji failed to show affidavit‑quality evidence, timeliness, surprise, or entitlement under Civ.R. 60(B); motion was a collateral attack on matters that could have been raised on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 2014) (elements and standards for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (appellate standard reviewing denial of Civ.R. 60(B) is abuse of discretion)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 188 Ohio App.3d 493 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (substance, not caption, controls characterization of ambiguous motions)