Keith v. KeithKeith v. Keith
Dated: March 22, 2010
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Bernard Keith, appeals from the decision of the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court. This Court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
{¶2} Bernard Keith and Evelyn Keith were married on April 4, 2004. They had no children. On April 15, 2009, Appellee, Wife, filed her complaint for divorce. At the time of filing, Husband, was incarcerated. A case management conference was scheduled. Husband sought to continue the case management conference due to the fact that he was incarcerated. Husband‘s term of incarceration, however, was increased and accordingly, he acknowledged that his motion for a continuance was moot. Husband had filed several motions prior to the case management conference, including a motion for spousal support, and a request for a restraining order. The trial court denied these motions. Husband also filed a request for a court order permitting him to appear via teleconference call on the date of the case management conference.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT‘S [SIC] DISCRETION AND ERRED TO THE DETRIMENT OF APPELLANT, BERNARD R. KEITH.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“TRIAL COURT DID NOT ADDRESS OR DISPOSE OF ALL PROPERTY AND NEGLECTED TO FULLY CARRY OUT IT‘S [SIC] RESPONSIBILITIES IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE JUDGMENT.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“COURT DID NOT MAKE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE INEQUITABLE DIVISION OF PROPERTY.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
“COURT MADE NO DETERMINATION AS TO THE VALUE OF VEHICLES OR HOUSEHOLD GOODS OR TO WHOM THE HOUSEHOLD GOOD [SIC] WERE TO BE AWARDED TO [SIC].”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
“COURT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE ACCOUNTS OR AMOUNTS OF DEBTS OWED IN SUFFICIENT ENOUGH DETAIL TO BE ADDRESSED BY [HUSBAND] OR REVIEWED ON APPEAL.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
“TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS MATTER OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT AT FINAL HEARING AS INDICATED IN JOURNALIZED ENTRY OF 6-5-09.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII
“THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE IS IN ERROR. THE ALLOCATING ½ LIABILITY TO [HUSBAND] FOR MARITAL DEBT ALLEDGEDLY [SIC] OWED TO FIRSTMERIT BANK IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $531.00, IN THE NAME OF BOTH PARTIES IS A FALSE DETERMINATION. THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT IS INCORRECT, INVALID AND VOID.”
{¶3} As a threshold issue, we are required to raise sua sponte issues pertaining to our jurisdiction.
{¶4} The
“*** shall not enter final judgment as to a claim for divorce, dissolution of marriage, annulment, or legal separation unless one of the following applies:
“(1) The judgment also divides the property of the parties, determines the appropriateness of an order of spousal support, and, where applicable, either allocates parental rights and responsibilities, including payment of child support, between the parties or orders shared parenting of minor children[.]”
“(2) Issues of property division, spousal support, and allocation of parental rights and responsibilities or shared parenting have been finally determined in orders,
previously entered by the court, that are incorporated into the judgment[.]” (Emphasis added.)
{¶5} In the instant case, the trial court‘s July 22, 2009 journal entry does not mention spousal support. Husband points to a June 5, 2009 trial court order denying his request for spousal support. The order further indicated that it would revisit the issue at the final hearing. However, as we have stated, pursuant to the July 22, 2009 journal entry, there is no indication that this occurred.
{¶6} As the trial court had previously denied spousal support,
{¶7} Although a determination that the divorce decree was not a final appealable order renders this Court without jurisdiction to review Husband‘s remaining assignments of error, “we
{¶8} As we find that the trial court‘s entry is not a final, appealable order, we are without jurisdiction to review the merits of Husband‘s assignments of error.
III.
{¶9} Based on the foregoing, this Court lacks jurisdiction and we hereby dismiss the instant appeal for lack of a final appealable order.
Appeal dismissed.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, P. J.
CONCURS
CARR, J.
CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY, SAYING:
{¶10} I concur in judgment only because the trial court‘s judgment does not constitute a final, appealable order and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
APPEARANCES:
BERNARD R. KEITH, pro se Appellant.
JESSICA BAGGETT, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.