541 N.E.2d 116 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1988
On November 3, 1986, plaintiff-appellee Debra A. Mallin filed a divorce action against defendant-appellant Christopher J. Mallin. At the time of the filing plaintiff petitioned the court to issue a temporary restraining order against defendant. The court issued the ex parte restraining order. Plaintiff represented to the court that her husband, the defendant, had been absent from the home for thirty days. On November 7, 1986, the defendant filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order. On November 20 and 21, 1986, an evidentiary hearing was held before a referee of the domestic relations division on plaintiff's motion for protective order. Included in the hearing were several other motions filed by both parties, to wit: plaintiff's motion to show cause, defendant's motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and defendant's motion for temporary custody of the parties' three minor children.
The referee recommended that plaintiff's motion to show cause and defendant's motion for temporary custody be denied. She also found that defendant had not been absent from the home as plaintiff had suggested and that the ex parte order on defendant should not have been issued. However, the referee did find that defendant had recklessly caused injury to the plaintiff and recommended that defendant be ordered to vacate the marital residence and remain out until further order of the court or a period of one year, whichever is sooner. Objections were filed to the referee's report. After independent review of the referee's report, the trial court overruled plaintiff's objections and adopted the recommendation of the referee.
Defendant appeals the trial court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for a protective order which ordered him to evacuate the marital premises. Defendant assigns six errors for review.
The record indicates that defendant made no timely complaint during the hearing about that of which he complains in his first assignment of error. A party's failure to object to the receipt or use of evidence usually waives any later challenge. See Evid. R. 103(A)(1); State v. Draggo (1981),
"An appellate court will not consider any error which a party complaining of a trial court's judgment could have called to the trial court's attention at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court." Mahone, supra, citingLeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co. (1987),
"A timely objection also permits the adverse party to take corrective *55 action which would eliminate any basis for complaint. Further, if the courts did not require timely objections, the complaining party could deliberately accept evidence, and then complain later whenever the ultimate result proves unsatisfactory." Mahone,supra, at 4.
The defendant's assignment of error does not constitute plain error which would justify a reversal absent a timely objection. Defendant's first assignment of error is overruled.
Defendant objected to the referee's report but did not provide the trial court with a transcript of the hearing or other evidentiary materials to contest the referee's findings. The trial court therefore properly adopted the referee's findings. Civ. R. 53(E)(6); Purpura v. Purpura (1986),
The referee in the present case allowed defendant, who represented himself at the hearing, to relate in narrative form his version of what occurred on November 4 and 5, 1986. The record clearly reveals that defendant was afforded a practically uninterrupted opportunity to relay his testimony. It is clear from that testimony that he denied ever harming plaintiff.
Defendant's allegation that he was not permitted to present his direct testimony in his defense is completely unsupported by the record. His assignment of error is not well-taken.
The trial court, upon accepting the referee's recommendation that plaintiff's motion for protective order be granted, issued the following ruling:
"Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (#107385) is hereby granted. Defendant is hereby ordered to vacate the marital residence and remain out of said residence until further order of Court or a period of one year, whichever is sooner. Defendant shall be permitted on the property located at 5439 Fenlake, Bedford Heights, Ohio only for purposes of picking up and returning the minor children for periods of visitation, andshall, under no circumstances, enter the marital residence.
"* * *" (Emphasis added.)
Former R.C.
"(E)(1) After an ex parte hearing or full hearing, the court may grant any protection order, with or without bond, or approve any consent agreement to bring about a cessation of domestic violence against the family or household members. The order or agreement may:
"* * *
"(b) Grant possession of the residence or household to the petitioner or *56 other family or household member, to the exclusion of therespondent, by evicting the respondent * * *." (See 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1985, 2020.)
Defendant agrees that the trial court had the authority to order him to vacate the marital residence. Defendant argues, however, that absent a finding of a prior protection order having been issued, the trial court did not have the authority to add to its order that defendant, "under no circumstances, enter the marital residence."3
Former R.C.
"(2) If a protection order has been issued pursuant to thissection in a prior action involving the respondent and the petitioner * * *, the court may include in a protection orderthat it issues a prohibition against the respondent returning tothe residence or household * * *." (Emphasis added.) (See 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1985, 2021.)
R.C.
R.C.
As stated earlier, under R.C.
The only way to give R.C.
Defendant's fifth assignment of error is without merit.
The full court's entry ordering the defendant evicted and not to return to the marital residence is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MARKUS and MITROVICH, JJ., concur.
PAUL H. MITROVICH, J., of the Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, sitting by assignment.