2021 Ohio 148
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Jessica P. Steele filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order; the trial court granted a protection order (for the parties’ minor child) effective for five years.
- Kenneth A. Steele, II appealed the trial court’s order but did not file objections in the trial court under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d).
- Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)–(v) makes a magistrate’s grant or denial after a full hearing effective only when adopted by the court; Civ.R. 65.1(G) makes adoption a final, appealable order but (since July 1, 2016) requires timely filing of objections before an appeal.
- The appellate court held that, because Kenneth failed to file timely objections, he cannot challenge the protection order on appeal and affirmed the trial court.
- The court expressed concern that the protection order’s language (stating it was a "final appealable order") could mislead parties into believing objections are unnecessary and cautioned trial courts to provide complete and accurate information.
- The court noted that a party may later move to modify or terminate a civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31, with the mover bearing the burden to show modification/termination is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Steele (petitioner) argument | Steele (appellant) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellant may challenge a trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s protection order on appeal without filing timely objections under Civ.R. 65.1 | Objections are required and absent objections an appeal cannot be entertained | The order was labeled a "final appealable order," suggesting objections were not required and an immediate appeal was permissible | Appellant cannot challenge the order on appeal because he failed to file timely objections under Civ.R. 65.1; judgment affirmed |
| Whether the trial court’s wording that the order is "final and appealable" misleads parties about the need to file objections | Courts must accurately inform parties that objections are still required despite final-appealable status | The order’s language could be read as permitting immediate appeal without objections | Court cautioned trial courts that stating an order is final and appealable should not imply objections are unnecessary; obligation to provide complete and accurate information |
| Whether an appellate court may review merits without a transcript of the magistrate hearing | Without a transcript, the appellant cannot show error; the record is insufficient for reversal | Appellant may assert errors without a full hearing transcript | In related precedent, absence of a transcript prevents meaningful appellate review and requires presumption that the evidence supports the magistrate; plaintiff’s position stands |
| Proper avenue for relief after a protection order is entered | A party seeking change should move to modify/terminate under R.C. 3113.31 | Appellant sought appellate reversal instead of statutory modification/termination | Parties may seek modification/termination under R.C. 3113.31; the mover bears the preponderance burden to justify change |
Key Cases Cited
- None of the authorities cited in the opinion appear with official reporter (Bluebook) citations suitable for listing; the opinion relies primarily on Ohio appellate slip opinions and Civ.R. 65.1 authorities.