SARAH B. HART, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY M. SPENCELEY, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2011-08-165
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
2/25/2013
[Cite as Hart v. Spenceley, 2013-Ohio-653.]
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. DR 08050638
Fred S. Miller, Baden & Jones Bldg., 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jeffery M. Spenceley (father), appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, modifying the terms of a parenting decree and finding plaintiff-appellee, Sarah B. Hart (mother), in contempt of the parenting decree on one occasion. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Father and mother were married on July 11, 2005. During the marriage, the
{¶ 3} In February 2011, father filed a motion for contempt against mother and a motion to modify parenting time. In his contempt motion, father cited several instances where mother allegedly failed to abide by the parenting time schedule. Father also requested attorney fees and court costs. Shortly thereafter, mother filed a motion to modify child support and to restrict father‘s parenting time.
{¶ 4} A hearing was held before a magistrate regarding all the motions. The magistrate found mother in contempt of the parenting decree on three occasions and granted father $500 in attorney fees and court costs. Additionally, the magistrate granted several of father‘s requests to modify parenting time and denied all of mother‘s motions. Mother filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. The trial court conducted an independent review of the record and sustained several of mother‘s objections. The court found mother in contempt on only one occasion and awarded father $100 for court costs but overruled the award of attorney fees for the contempt motion. The court reasoned that an award of attorney fees was not appropriate because father did not submit any evidence regarding the fees he incurred in prosecuting the contempt motions. Additionally, the court denied many of father‘s requests to modify parenting time. The court also denied mother‘s requests to modify child support and to restrict father‘s parenting time.
{¶ 5} Father now appeals, raising three assignments of error.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1
{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 2
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN IT MODIFIED THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION.
{¶ 10} We will address father‘s first two assignments of error together as they both concern the scope of a trial court‘s review of a magistrate‘s decision. Father contends that pursuant to
{¶ 11} Where a matter is referred to a magistrate, the magistrate and the trial court must conduct the proceedings in conformity with the powers and procedures conferred by
{¶ 12} As the First District has recognized, “[m]agistrates and their powers are wholly creatures of rules of practice and procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court.” Yanket v. Coach Builders Limited, Inc., 1st Dist. No. C-060601, 2007-Ohio-5126, ¶ 9. A magistrate‘s exercise of such broad powers is intended only “to assist courts of record.”
{¶ 13} A trial court still retains the ability to employ its own judgment in a case even if it refers a matter to a magistrate. See Koeppen v. Swank, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-09-234, 2009-Ohio-3675, ¶ 37.
{¶ 14} However, the filing or failure to file objections does not prevent the trial court from reviewing the magistrate‘s decision.
Whether or not objections are timely filed, a court may adopt or reject a magistrate‘s decision in whole or in part, with or without modification. A court may hear a previously-referred matter, take additional evidence, or return a matter to a magistrate. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, although a trial court can treat a party‘s general objections to a magistrate‘s decision as if no objection was filed at all, the court is not constrained to this level of review. Solomon at ¶ 15. Instead, a trial court is free to engage in an independent review of the record. Id.
{¶ 15} We find that the trial court did not err in conducting an independent review of the magistrate‘s decision and making credibility and factual determinations that were contrary
{¶ 16} Therefore, the trial court did not err in conducting an independent review of the magistrate‘s decision and not deferring to the magistrate‘s credibility and factual determinations. Father‘s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 17} Assignment of Error No. 3
{¶ 18} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN IT VACATED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES TO APPELLANT.
{¶ 19} In father‘s third assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred when it vacated the award of attorney fees. As in the first assignment of error, father argues that the trial court was prohibited from engaging in an independent review of the record because mother‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision did not specifically address attorney fees. As discussed above,
{¶ 21}
{¶ 22} The award of attorney fees must also be “reasonable.”
{¶ 23}
{¶ 24} At the hearing before the magistrate, father testified that his total attorney fees for prosecuting the contempt motions and the motion to modify parenting time amounted to between $1,400 and $1,500. Father presented no other evidence documenting his attorney fees or the portions of the fees related to the contempt motions. The magistrate awarded court costs and attorney fees to father in the amount of $500. However, the trial court overruled this award and ordered mother to reimburse father $100 for the filing fee associated with the contempt motion. The court reasoned that it could not determine a reasonable fee for the one count of contempt against mother because father failed to present any evidence besides his testimony as to the attorney fees he incurred.
{¶ 25} We find that the trial court did not err when it declined to grant father attorney fees. Although the language in
{¶ 26} Father‘s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 27} Judgment affirmed.