Lead Opinion
{¶ 3} On January 6, 2006, Ronda filed a final accounting tallying all of the receipts, disbursements, and remaining balance of Bevan's estate, and a motion to terminate the guardianship. The Siblings and Lorain National Bank, the administrator of Bevan's estate, filed exceptions to Ronda's accounting, arguing that her calculations could not be verified based on the information and receipts that she provided in her final accounting. On April 5, 2007, the magistrate issued his decision, determining that Ronda owed the guardianship estate $26,659.45 based on certain unauthorized expenditures and failure to account for certain receipts. Ronda and the Siblings filed objections to the magistrate's decision, and the trial court ordered the magistrate to supplement its decision with findings of fact and law. On May 9, 2007, the magistrate produced its supplemental findings and reduced the amount Ronda owed to $18, 540.23. Ronda and the Siblings filed additional objections.
{¶ 4} Before the trial court responded to the additional objections, Ronda filed a supplemental guardian's final account on May 10, 2007. The court accepted Ronda's supplemental filing and relied upon it in its ruling on the magistrate's decision. On February 21, 2008, the court determined that Ronda provided several of the unaccounted for receipts in her supplemental filing, further reduced the amount Ronda owed to $5,610.36, and approved the guardianship account.
{¶ 5} The Siblings now appeal from the trial court's judgment and raise two assignments of error for our review.1 *3
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPROVING THE GUARDIAN'S FINAL ACCOUNT, HOLDING THE GUARDIAN CHARGEABLE WITH ONLY $5,610.36 IN RECEIPT SHORTAGES."
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE GUARDIAN TO FILE A `1ST FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ACCOUNT.'"
{¶ 6} In their first assignment of error, the Siblings argue that the trial court erred in approving Ronda's final accounting and finding her personally liable to Bevan's estate for only $5,610.36. In their second assignment of error, the Siblings argue that the trial court erred in accepting Ronda's supplemental final account filing. We cannot address either argument, however, because the Siblings have not appealed from a final judgment.
{¶ 7} The Ohio Constitution limits an appellate court's jurisdiction to the review of final judgments of lower courts. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV. For a judgment to be final and appealable, the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 8} Civ. R. 53 governs magistrate's decisions. This Court has literally interpreted Civ. R. 53 in the past and has held that for a trial court's ruling on a magistrate's decision to be final, the court must independently enter judgment. Harkai v. Scherba Industries,Inc. (2000),
{¶ 9} The record reflects that after the Siblings received the magistrate's supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law on their exceptions, the Siblings filed seven objections to the magistrate's decision on May 24, 2007. On February 21, 2008, the trial court issued a "Judgment Entry on Objections to Guardian's Account" in which it noted that it was considering the Siblings' objections. Yet, a review of the trial court's judgment entry reveals that the trial court never explicitly ruled on the Siblings' objections. The court merely adjusted the amount that Rhonda, as Bevan's guardian, owed to the estate and approved the accounting. Moreover, a reading of the trial court's judgment entry indicates that the trial court may have confused the Siblings' objections with the guardian's expenditures. The court's entry reads, in part, as follows:
*5"This matter came to be considered upon objections to the First and Final Guardian's Account. The account lists * * * 373 expenditures * * *. Exceptors filed objections to 367 expenditures[.] * * * Regarding expenditures, exceptors do not address each of the 367 objections separately." (Emphasis added.)
The court's second journal entry, in response to the Siblings' request for findings of fact and conclusions of law further provides, in relevant part, that:
"For reasons set forth in the February 21, 2008 entry, no specific findings can be made with respect to each of the 367 objections raised by exceptors." (Emphasis added.)
As previously noted, the Siblings filed seven objections to the magistrate's decision, which challenged the 367 expenditures listed in the guardian's accounting as well as other matters. The Siblings did not file 367 objections. Consequently, apart from the fact that the trial court did not explicitly rule on the Siblings' seven objections, it would appear that the court may have confused the objections with the expenditures.
{¶ 10} Because the lower court's order does not explicitly rule on the Siblings' objections so as to fully determine the action below, it is not a final, appealable order. See R.C.
*6Appeal dismissed.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App. R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App. R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellants.
SLABY, J., CONCURS
Notes
Concurrence Opinion
{¶ 12} I concur in the majority's opinion, but write separately to clarify the jurisdictional issue decided today and to provide further analysis of finality where objections to a magistrate's decision remain pending.
{¶ 13} As the majority states, Civ. R. 53 is clear: trial courts have a mandatory duty to rule upon timely objections to a magistrate's decision. At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court's failure to do so affects finality or whether it is instead a matter of trial court error.
{¶ 14} Civ. R. 53 provides an express answer to this question where parties have filed objections after the trial court enters judgment on the magistrate's decision. As Civ. R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i) and App. R. 4(B)(2) together explain, an objection filed after judgment is treated as *7
a post-judgment motion and therefore acts to stay the judgment until ruled upon. Under App. R. 4(B)(2), it is not until the trial court disposes of all objections that appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See, e.g., Daugherty v. Daugherty (Oct. 6, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 98CA0050; AAA Pipe Cleaning Corp. v. Arrow Uniform Rental,Inc. (July 22, 1999), 8th Dist. No. 74215; Drummond v. Drummond, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-700,
{¶ 15} But what Civ. R. 53 does not address, and what is presented in this appeal, is the effect of unresolved objections filedbefore judgment is entered. Many courts in Ohio have considered this issue and have concluded that the trial court's failure to rule upon "pre-judgment" objections does not affect finality, but instead constitutes trial court error. See, e.g., Ferretti v. Graham (Feb. 13, 2001), 10th Dist. No. 00AP-765; Kolman v. Bldg. Works Co., Inc., 8th Dist. No. 80552,
{¶ 16} Despite these decisions, the majority concludes today, and I agree, that a trial court's failure to rule on pre-judgment objections is a jurisdictional bar to this court's review. This conclusion is compelled by R.C.
{¶ 17} When applied here, these principles support, and in fact require, our decision today. Because a trial court is obligated to rule on objections, the objections are necessarily part of the "whole merits of the cause." Until resolved, they remain pending for the trial court's determination and therefore prevent finality. See Arnold v. Bible, 5th Dist. No. 03CA000034,
{¶ 18} Accordingly, I concur in the dismissal of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
*1