Fecke v. SizemoreFecke v. Sizemore
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se
ROCKY SIZEMORE, 4539 Marlin Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45416
Defendant-Appellee, Pro Se
WELBAUM, J.
OPINION
Rendered on the 8th day of May, 2020.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On August 14, 2019, Fecke filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order (“CSPO“) against her sister‘s husband, Sizemore. Fecke‘s petition alleged that Sizemore came to her house and pounded on the front door while cursing at her and yelling for her to open the door so that he could take pictures of the house. Fecke waived an ex parte order, and the case was scheduled for а full evidentiary hearing to be held before a magistrate on August 20, 2019. Both Fecke and Sizemore appeared at thе hearing pro se, and the magistrate heard testimony from each party.
{¶ 3} The parties’ testimony established that therе was an ongoing dispute between Fecke and her sister regarding their deceased mother‘s residence, where Fecke had been living. Fecke testified that on June 19, 2019, Sizemore came to the residence and pounded on the frоnt door while yelling and cursing. Fecke testified that Sizemore then walked around to the backyard where she and her daughter were located and confronted them. Fecke testified that Sizemore demanded to come inside the residеnce so that he could take pictures for purposes of putting the residence up for sale. Fecke testified that when she and her daughter told him to leave, Sizemore backed them into
{¶ 4} Sizemore testified that the residence in question was in probate and belonged to his wife, Fecke, and thеir brother. Sizemore testified that Fecke had claimed the residence for herself and had been living there for the past three years. Sizemore testified that he and his wife had recently discovered that Fecke had not been paying taxes on the residence, had no homeowner‘s insurance, and was not taking care of the property. With regard to the incident in question, Sizemore testified that he knocked aggressively on the front door without yelling and advised Fecke that he had permission from his wife to take pictures of the house. According to Sizemore, he simply went inside the residеnce, took pictures, and left.
{¶¶ 5} After hearing the evidence, the magistrate issued a decision concluding that Feсke had failed to establish that Sizemore had engaged in two or more incidents that would cause Fecke to reasonably fear physical harm. As a result, the magistrate denied Fecke‘s CSPO petition. On September 3, 2019, the trial court found no errors of law or defects on the face of the magistrate‘s decision, adopted it, and entered a judgment dеnying the petition for a CSPO. Fecke did not file objections to the trial court‘s decision. Instead, on September 20, 2019, she filed a notice of appeal indicating that she was appealing from the trial court‘s judgment denying her petition fоr a CSPO.
{¶ 6} In support of her appeal, Fecke has filed a pro se appellate brief, but has not assertеd any assignments of error as required by
Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} Pursuant to
{¶ 8} “A magistrate‘s decision to grаnt or deny a [CSPO] after a full hearing is not subject to the requirements in
{¶ 9} Before the rule was amended in July 2016, parties could either immediately appeal a court‘s adoption of the magistrate‘s decision or file timely objections in the trial court. Id. at ¶¶ 8, fn. 1. As amended, however,
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule, an order entered by the court under division (F)(3)(c) or division (F)(3)(e) of this rule is a final, appealable order. However, a party must timely file objections to such an order under division (F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal, and the timely filing of such objections shall stay the running of the time for appeal until the filing of the court‘s ruling on the objections.
{¶ 10} In this case, the record indicates that Fecke failed to file objections to the trial court‘s adoption of the magistrate‘s decision. As a result, Fecke cannot nоw challenge the trial court‘s decision. See Whatley v. Canales, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28382, 2020-Ohio-213, ¶¶ 9, citing Runkle at ¶¶ 10, citing J.S. v. D.E., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0032, 2017-Ohio-7507, ¶ 22. See also Anderson v. Gregory, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28277, 2019-Ohio-2346, 8-9.
Conclusion
{¶ 11} Given that Fecke failed to file objections to the trial court‘s adoption of the magistrate‘s decision denying a CSPO as mandated by
DONOVAN, J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Theresa Fecke
Rocky Sizemore
Hon. Michael W. Krumholtz