BRANDY A. ARGENZIANO v. FRANK A. ARGENZIANO
C.A. No. 10CA0116-M
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Dated: April 2, 2012
2012-Ohio-1447
CARR, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE Nо. 08CR0359
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Frank Argenziano (“Husband“), appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which overruled his objeсtions and adopted the magistrate‘s decision. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Appellee, Brandy Argenziano (“Wife“), filed a complaint for divorce from Husband. The couple had two minor children born of the marriage. The matter was heard by a magistrate who issued a decision on September 24, 2010, regarding the termination of the parties’ marriage with children. On the same day, the domestic relations court issued a final decree of divorce with children. On October 8, 2010, Husband filed timely оbjections to the magistrate‘s decision in which he objected to 26 specific findings of fact and another six specific “Conclusions of Law/Findings of Faсt.” Husband requested an oral hearing on his objections and requested that he be permitted to supplement his objections after preparation of a transcript
{¶3} On October 20, 2010, the trial court issued a judgment entry overruling Husband‘s objections and adopting thе magistrate‘s findings of facts because Husband had failed to file a transcript in support of his objections. The trial court further noted that Husband had not filed a praecipe to the court reporter requesting preparation of a transcript of the proceedings or deposited a рayment of costs with the court reporter to secure a transcript. Husband appealed, raising one assignment of error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND VIOLATED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY (1) HOLDING A NON-ORAL HEARING ON HIS TIMELY-FILED WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION WITHIN DAYS OF ITS FILING, WITHOUT PROVIDING NOTICE OF THAT HEARING, AND (2) DISMISSING THOSE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS WELL BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE 30-DAY DEADLINE UNDER
CIV.R. 53(D)(3) FOR FILING THE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS, ON THE GROUNDS THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DID NOT FILE A PRAECIPE TO THE COURT REPORTER AND PAY A DEPOSIT OF COSTS TO THE COURT REPORTER TO SECURE THE REQUIRED TRANSCRIPTS, WHERE THERE IS NO LOCAL RULE OR OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH A PRAECIPE BE FILED AND COSTS OF THE TRANSCRIPTS BE PAID IN ADVANCE.”
{¶4} Husband argues that the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate‘s findings of fact and overruling his objections to the magistrate‘s decision after a non-oral hearing based on his failure to file a praecipe or pay costs to the court reporter to secure the preparation of a transcript in support of his objections. This Court disagrees.
{¶5} Husband acknowledges that, pursuant to
{¶6} Loc. R. 1.07, in effect at the time Husband filed his objections, addresses the preparation of transcripts of proceedings before a magistrate and states, in relevаnt part:
- If a transcript is required, a praecipe to the Court Reporter requesting a transcript of the proceedings must be delivered to and acknowledged by the Court Reporter at the time of the filing of the Objection or Motion to Set Aside. Failure to timely file the praecipe may result in the denial or dismissal of an Objection or Motion to Set Aside.
- A deposit of costs to secure the transcript must be paid to the Court Reporter within 7 dаys of the filing of the Objection or Motion to Set Aside. If the deposit for the costs of a transcript is not made within 14 days of the filing of the Objection or Motion tо Set Aside, the Objection or Motion may be denied or dismissed.
{¶7} By failing to recognize the existence of the local rule which formed the basis for the trial сourt‘s denial of Husband‘s objections, Husband has failed to make any argument regarding the propriety or application of the rule. This Court has long recognized that “[a]n appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the error
{¶8} Husband furthеr argues that the domestic relations court‘s ruling on his objections after a non-oral hearing violated his right to due process. He argues that the trial сourt violated the requirements of notice and the opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing subsumed in
{¶9}
{¶10} In further support of his argument, Husband cites Shell v. Shell, 5th Dist. No. 2010 CA 00026, 2010-Ohio-5813, at ¶ 24, in which the appellate court held that the domestic relations court committed reversible error when it dismissed the wife‘s contempt motion as unripe without allowing a hearing. The Shell court did not rely on
{¶11} Husband‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶12} Husband‘s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a sрecial mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified cоpy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall bе file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, P. J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
BRUCE E. HALL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
JOSEPH F. SALZGEBER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
KRISTOPHER K. AUPPERLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.