Tripoulas v. Frenchko
2017 Ohio 6950
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2014, Andrew Tripoulas petitioned for a civil stalking protection order against Michele Frenchko; the trial court issued a civil stalking order.
- Frenchko filed objections and a motion to vacate the civil protection order.
- On April 21, 2017, the trial court overruled Frenchko’s objections except that it removed Tripoulas’s mother and two daughters from the list of protected persons. A revised stalking order was journalized that day.
- The clerk mailed copies of the April 21, 2017 entry to the parties and noted service on the appearance docket the same day.
- Frenchko filed a notice of appeal on June 15, 2017, more than 30 days after the April 21 entry. The appellate court considered whether the appeal was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal was timely under App.R. 4(A) and Civ.R. 58(B) | Tripoulas (appellee) argued the clerk served the order within three days, so the 30-day appeal clock began April 21, 2017 | Frenchko (appellant) implicitly contended her notice was timely or that service timing tolled the appeal period | The clerk served the entry April 21, 2017; the 30-day period began that day and expired May 22, 2017, so the June 15, 2017 notice was untimely; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008-Ohio-6810 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2008) (failure to comply with App.R. 4(A) is a jurisdictional defect fatal to an appeal)
- State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 1988) (appellate court cannot extend time to file a civil appeal)
- Coles v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 163 Ohio App.3d 659, 2005-Ohio-5360 (Ohio App. 2005) (Civ.R. 58(B) service delays toll the appeal period until service is noted)