STEVEN D. MARRS v. SABRINA E. MICKEL
No. 112221
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
December 14, 2023
[Cite as Marrs v. Mickel, 2023-Ohio-4528.]
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-19-378637
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 14, 2023
Appearances:
Stafford Law Firm Co., L.P.A. and Joseph G. Stafford, Nicole A. Cruz, and Kelley R. Tauring, for appellee.
McDonald Humphrey, LLP and Eric L. Foster and Jonathan M. McDonald, for appellant.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{1} Defendant-appellant Sabrina Mickel appeals from the trial court‘s judgment of divorce. Shе contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting “irrelevant evidence” regarding her “licensure issues” as a dentist, her
Procedural and Factual Background
{2} Mickel and Marrs were married on July 21, 2012. The couple had no children together. On September 30, 2019, Marrs filed a complaint for divorce, alleging that Mickel had “been guilty of gross neglect, adultery and extreme cruelty towards [Marrs].” He requested an absolute divorce from Mickel, an award of temporary and permanent spousal support, equitable division of all property and recovery of his attorney fees and expenses. On October 23, 2019, Mickel filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce in which she denied Marrs’ allegations of neglect, adultery and cruelty against her and alleged that Marrs had “acted or, failed to act, in a manner which entitles [Mickel] to a divorce” pursuant to
{4} On March 2, 2022, the magistrate issued his decision, ruling that Marrs was entitled to a divorce from Mickel on grоunds of “[i]ncompatibility (gross neglect and extreme cruelty)” pursuant to
{5} On March 15, 2022, Mickel filed her preliminary objections to the magistrate‘s decision objecting to the magistratе‘s finding that the trial court had jurisdiction over Marrs’ complaint. Mickel argued that Marrs had not been a resident of Ohio for six months immediately prior to the filing of his complaint and that the trial court, therefore, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.
{6} On June 3, 2022, Mickel filed supplemental objections in which she raised four objections to the magistrate‘s dеcision: (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding because Marrs “never established the residence requirement as required under the law,” (2) “[t]he [m]agistrate‘s financial misconduct determination should not be adopted because [Marrs] did not meet his
{7} In November 2022, the trial court ruled on Mickel‘s objections and issued a final judgment entry of divorce. The trial court sustained Mickel‘s objection regarding jurisdiction, in part, concluding that the magistrate had erred in finding that the court had jurisdiction over Marrs’ complaint for divorce but determining that the court had jurisdiction to proceed based on Mickel‘s counterclaim for divorce. The trial court overruled Mickel‘s remaining objections.
{8} As a result of its rulings on Mickel‘s objections, the trial court modified the magistrate‘s decision. The trial court dismissed Marrs’ сomplaint and found that (1) there was “sufficient evidence to go forward” on Mickel‘s counterclaim for divorce, (2) jurisdiction and venue were proper as to Mickel‘s counterclaim for divorce and (3) Mickel had “established the grounds of incompatibility, not denied,” and was entitled to a divorce from Marrs on that basis pursuant to
{9} Mickel appealed, raising the following two assignments of error for review:
Assignment of Error I: The trial court abused its discretion by admitting irrelevant evidence in violation of
Evid.R. 402 (Tr. 16-17, 19-23, 60-68, 77-82, 109-114, 149-152.)
Assignment of Error II: The trial court deprived appellant of a fair trial by erroneously admitting irrelevant evidence on numerous occasions such that the cumulative еrror doctrine justifies reversal of the trial court‘s judgment.
Law and Analysis
Admission of Irrelevant Evidence
{10} In her first assignment of error, Mickel contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Marrs to question her regarding her “licensure issues” as a dentist, her “prior issues with drug addiction,” her “criminal conduct” and “commission of insurance fraud,” dental treatment she administered to Marrs’ son and a lawsuit she had filed against members of the Dental Board. She contends that such evidence was irrelevant and improperly admitted under
{11} Before considering the merits of Mickel‘s assignment of error, we must first determine whether she properly preserved the issues she now raises for appellate review.
{12}
{13} While Mickel timely filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, she did not raise the specific issues she now seeks to raise on appeal in her objections to
{14} “Plain errors are errors in the judicial process that are clearly apparent on the face of the record and are prejudicial to the appellant.” Lundeen at ¶ 12, quoting Macintosh Farms Community Assn., Inc. v. Baker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102820, 2015-Ohio-5263, ¶ 8. When applying the plain-error doctrine in the civil context, reviewing courts “must proceed with the utmost caution.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997). The doctrine is limited to those “extremely rare cases” in which “exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a materially adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings.” Id. Plain error exists only where the error “seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Id. at 122-123.
{15} Mickel has not argued, much less demonstrated, plain error in this case. This court need not analyze plain error when the appellant has failed to make a plain-error argument. See, e.g., Alcorso v. Correll, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110218, 2021-Ohio-3351, ¶ 34 (“As a general matter, this court will not sua sponte craft a
{16} Even if we were to consider the issue, we would find no plain error here. Based on a review of the record, this is not the “extremely rare case” where this court is required tо apply the plain-error doctrine to avoid a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” This is not a case where the error complained of would have “a materially adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings” and “challeng[es] the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process.” Goldfuss at 121-123.
{17} First, the record reflects that Mickel herself raised the issues of her criminal conduct, licensure issues as a dentist and dealings with the Dental Board in her opening statement, indicating that she would be presenting evidence showing that “those were all due to [Marrs‘] conduct”2 and, in fact, testified in her case
{18} Second, even assuming the admitted evidence regarding which Mickel now complains was not relevant to a determination of gross neglect, adultery, extreme cruelty or incompatibility — the grounds Marrs and Mickel had raised for divorce — whether the parties had grounds for divorce was not the only issue to be dеcided in the divorce proceeding. The trial court was also required to identify and divide marital property, determine whether financial misconduct had occurred, determine whether spousal support should be awarded (and, if so, in what amount) and determine whether either of the parties was entitled to an award of attorney fees. Mickel has not clаimed that such evidence was not relevant to a determination of any of these other issues.
{19} Finally, Mickel has not demonstrated that she was in any way harmed by the admission of any of the allegedly irrelevant evidence.
No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence * * * is ground for * * * vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
{21} Because Mickel has not shown thаt any of the trial court‘s alleged evidentiary errors affected any substantial right, we must disregard them. Mickel‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
Cumulative Error
{22} In her second assignment of error, Mickel argues that even if none of the trial court‘s evidentiary errors alone warranted reversal, the cumulative effect of these alleged errors deprived her of a fair trial, warranting revеrsal under the cumulative-error doctrine.
{23} Under the cumulative-error doctrine, a trial court‘s judgment may be reversed if the cumulative effect of multiple errors prevents a fair trial even though each of the individual errors, standing alone, would not constitute grounds for reversal. State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64, 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995); Johnson v. U.S. Title Agency, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108547, 2020-Ohio-4056, ¶ 73; see also Snell v. Snell, 5th Dist. Richland No. 13CA80, 2014-Ohio-3285, ¶ 64 (“Ohio courts have found ‘the extension of the cumulative error doctrine to civil casеs is warranted where the court is confronted with several errors, which either are
{24} The cumulative-error doctrine does not apply in cases where there are not multiple errors. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111922, 2023-Ohio-2296, ¶ 103; 180 Degree Solutions L.L.C. v. Metron Nutraceuticals, L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109986, 2021-Ohio-2769, ¶ 92, citing O‘Malley v. O‘Malley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98708, 2013-Ohio-5238, ¶ 95; see also Austin v. Mid-Ohio Pipeline Servs., L.L.C., 5th Dist. Richland Nos. 2022 CA 0021, 2022 CA 0041 and 2022 CA 0060, 2023-Ohio-1958, ¶¶ 52-53 (where appellate court found no error in the evidentiary determinations made by the trial court, the cumulative error doctrine was inapplicable “as there have not been multiple errors“). A party cannot establish a right to relief under the cumulative error doctrine simply by joining multiple meritless claims together. State v. Wagner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109678, 2023-Ohio-1215, ¶ 73 (Cumulative error cannot be established by “merely ‘combining * * * unsuccessful claims together.‘“), quoting State v. Brown, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 22AP-38, 22AP-39, 22AP-40, 22AP-41 and 22AP-42, 2022-Ohio-4073, ¶ 39. “[T]he doctrine of cumulative error is inapplicable when the alleged errors are found to be harmless or nonexistent.” State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111947, 2023-Ohio-2381, ¶ 84, quoting State v. Allen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102385, 2016-Ohio-102, ¶ 53.
{26} Mickel‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{27} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations 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.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR
Notes
You will hear testimony about, yes, there are some matters that Dеfendant went through regarding criminally; however, those were all due to the Plaintiff‘s actions: He is the one that wrote to the dental board. He is the one that wrote all of these fraudulent statements that are just put forward for the dental board, and it caused her damages in the amount of attorney fees, getting her license suspended, reinstated, everything. So at the end оf the day, he is the one that caused this. She didn‘t cause any of this stuff. It was his actions and his own doing to her. * * * At the end of the day, what we are going to show is it is because of his actions and consequently is what caused Sabrina Mickel to be damaged.