In re A.F.R.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS
Michael B. Telep
4438 Pearl Road
Cleveland, OH 44109
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Katherine A. Friedell
Schoonover, Rosenthal, Thurman & Daray, L.L.C.
North Point Tower
1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1720
Cleveland, OH 44114
Also Listed:
H.G.
4215 West 24th Street
Cleveland, OH 44109
C.T.
1391 South Belvoir
Cleveland, OH 44121
MELODY J. STEWART, J.:
{¶1} Appellants N.R. and L.R., the maternal grandparents of two minor children of appellee Ni.R., appeal from a judgment that adopted a magistrate‘s decisions granting their motions for visitation with the children (there were separate motions for each child), but ordered the grandparents and mother to engage in counseling to address their ongoing relationship problems. The issue on appeal is whether the court erred by finding the grandparents filed untimely objections to the magistrate‘s decisions.
{¶2} “A party may file written objections to a magistrate‘s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as
{¶3} The grandparents argue that their objections were not untimely because the magistrate‘s decisions were never journalized. They acknowledge that each decision contained the notations “received for filing,” but argue that the clerk of the court‘s receipt of these documents is not the same as journalizing the documents. {¶4} We agree with the grandparents that “filing” and “journalizing” documents are not always the same thing, but this difference affords them nothing. With respect to a magistrate‘s decision,
{¶5} “To journalize a decision means that certain formal requirements have been met, i.e., the decision is reduced to writing, it is signed by a judge, and it is filed with the clerk so that it may become a part of the permanent record of the court.” State v. Ellington, 36 Ohio App.3d 76, 78, 521 N.E.2d 504 (9th Dist.1987). The rules drafters plainly understood that journalizing a magistrate‘s decision before it had been adopted by the court would be premature because it would suggest that it had indeed been adopted by the court. It is for this reason that
{¶6} Cases involving magistrate decisions are distinguishable from cases where the court journalizes a document, usually by the clerk of the court noting the date on which a document has been “received for filing.” When the court is journalizing a decision, we have specifically rejected the argument “that filing and journalizing are two separate acts and that the mark ‘received for filing’ is insufficient to show journalization by the clerk.” See State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99428, 2013-Ohio-3154, ¶ 10. See also State v. Orr, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100166, 2014-Ohio-501, ¶ 5 (“a time stamp reflecting the judgment entry had been received for filing is sufficient to provide notice of journalization by the clerk and complies with the requirement of
{¶7} It follows that the magistrate‘s decisions did not, and could not, be journalized upon filing unless specifically adopted by the court. Nevertheless, the issuance of the magistrate‘s decisions started the time period in which to file objections. The grandparents did not file their objections during the fourteen-day period as required by
{¶8} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR