Smith v. Strong
2017 Ohio 6918
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Smith petitioned for an ex parte domestic-violence civil protection order (CPO) against Strong; the magistrate denied ex parte relief but held a full hearing on December 12, 2016.
- Parties share a child and conduct custody exchanges at neutral locations (school or Scott Park police station); exchanges continued after the incident.
- On August 14, 2016, after a custody exchange, Smith testified Strong drove aggressively behind her, drove close to her bumper, moved alongside her car, and caused her to fear a serious accident; Strong denied recollection and denied threats.
- Magistrate found Smith credible and issued a CPO effective until August 16, 2018; Strong filed objections and a supplemental objection after the hearing transcript filed.
- Trial court struck the supplemental objections as untimely, overruled the general objection, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Strong appealed raising two assignments of error (timeliness and manifest weight).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Strong) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in striking Strong’s supplemental objections as untimely | The supplemental objections were untimely (trial court) but harmless because general objection raised same points | Supplemental objections were timely under Civ.R. 6(A) because the 10-day deadline fell on Saturday and the next business day was Tuesday after MLK Day | Court: striking was erroneous — supplemental objections were timely; error was harmless because the court addressed the substance in Strong’s general objection |
| Whether the evidence was against the manifest weight such that CPO should not have been granted | Smith: Magistrate reasonably believed her testimony that Strong’s driving placed her in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm, supporting a CPO | Strong: Testimony was insufficient and magistrate’s finding was against manifest weight; he denied the events and prior threats | Court: Magistrate’s credibility findings were supported by competent, credible evidence; Smith proved by preponderance she was in reasonable fear and CPO was properly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (petitioner must prove danger of domestic violence by preponderance to obtain CPO)
- Gaydash v. Gaydash, 168 Ohio App.3d 418 (2006) (intentionally driving a vehicle at another vehicle can constitute a threat of force supporting domestic-violence finding)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (appellate deference to trial court credibility assessments)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (review will not reverse if supported by competent, credible evidence)
- O’Brien v. Angley, 63 Ohio St.2d 159 (1980) (harmless error standard)