Depizzo v. StabileDepizzo v. Stabile
{¶ 2} On August 23, 2003, DePizzo filed a Complaint to Establish Parent-Child Relationship and for Child Support and for Other Relief against Defendant-Appellee, Brian L. Stabile. Genetic testing established that defendant-appellee, Brian L. Stabile, was Roch's biological father. On December 8, 2005, a hearing was held before a magistrate of the Juvenile Court on the issue of whether DePizzo's claim for retroactive child support was barred by
{¶ 3} On December 13, 2005, the magistrate issued his decision denying DePizzo's claims for retroactive support. The Magistrate's Decision contained the following: "The time limits for filing objections are limited. A party has fourteen (14) days to file written objections AFTER the decision has been filed OR NOT LATER THAN ten (10) after the first objections are filed. An affidavit of evidence is REQUIRED if no transcript is filed with the objections otherwise only objections as to law may be raised." The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision on the same day.
{¶ 4} On December 27, 2005, DePizzo moved the court for additional time to file objections for the following reasons: "The Plaintiffs need time to first obtain a transcript of the hearing in this case. The Plaintiffs also need time to brief the issues in this case. The issues in this case are primarily legal issues."
{¶ 5} On January 20, 2006, the trial court denied DePizzo's motion on the grounds that "per Juvenile Rule 40(3)(a) there is no provision for an extension of time."
{¶ 6} DePizzo timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error: "The judgment of the trial court overruling the Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for an extension of time to file their objection to the magistrate's decision was an abuse of discretion."
{¶ 7} "The grant or denial of a continuance is a matter that is entrusted to the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge."State v. Unger (1981),
{¶ 8} "There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied." Unger,
{¶ 9} The trial court denied DePizzo's motion on the grounds that former
{¶ 10} We also note that, as of July 1, 2006,
{¶ 11} Although the juvenile court was incorrect in its estimation of its ability to grant DePizzo's continuance, this issue is not dispositive of the appeal. It is a "universal tenet" of Ohio law, "that a reviewing court has a duty to affirm the trial court's judgment when the judgment is correct albeit based on the wrong reason." State v. Eschenauer, 11th Dist. No. 12-237,
{¶ 12} The circumstances of the present case justify the denial of DePizzo's motion for an extension of time. DePizzo waited until the last day for filing objections to request additional time. There is no indication that DePizzo was unable to obtain a transcript or file objections within the fourteen-day period, only that she did not do so. Moreover, DePizzo acknowledged that her objections would raise legal issues, not factual ones. A transcript is not necessary to raise objections based on the magistrate's conclusions of law. Cf.
{¶ 13} In sum, DePizzo did not demonstrate the existence of circumstances that prevented her from timely filing objections to the magistrate's decision. Parties are not entitled to extensions of time merely because they have timely requested an extension. Cf. In re Thut, 11th Dist. No. 2004-L-138,
{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying DePizzo's Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate's Decision is affirmed.
Donald R. Ford, P.J., Cynthia Westcott Rice, J., concur.