R.S. v. B.A.
No. 112303
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
September 21, 2023
2023-Ohio-3364
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 21, 2023
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-22-969175
Appearances:
Antonio S. Nicholson, for appellant.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, B.A., appeals the trial court‘s order overruling his objections to the magistrate‘s order, adopted by the trial court, that granted a
{¶ 2} On September 26, 2022, R.S. filed a petition for a civil protection order against B.A. pursuant to
{¶ 3} On November 7, 2022, R.S. appeared with counsel for the hearing, but neither B.A. nor counsel appeared on his behalf. The magistrate concluded the hearing and issued a decision granting the petition. On November 10, 2022, the trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision granting the civil protection order.
{¶ 4} On November 22, 2022, B.A., through counsel, filed a motion to set aside the magistrate‘s order, a motion to reconsider, and an objection to the magistrate‘s order awarding the civil protection order. These filings are similar in substance and each state that B.A.‘s counsel did not enter an appearance in the case prior to the continued hearing date, B.A.‘s counsel had a conflict on the date of the continued hearing, and B.A.‘s counsel advised B.A. to not appear at the hearing. In response to the filings, R.S. argued that B.A.‘s counsel did not seek a continuance
{¶ 5} On December 9, 2022, the trial court issued three journal entries resolving B.A.‘s November 22, 2022 filings.1 As to the objection filed to the magistrate‘s order, pursuant to
{¶ 6} B.A. raises one assignment of error that reads:
The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled appellant‘s objection to [the] magistrate‘s decision.
B.A. argues the trial court abused its discretion because the decision “constituted a failure to exercise sound, reasonable and legal decision making, specifically when the [trial court] opined that the objection to the magistrate‘s decision was without a reasonable basis.” R.S. did not file a brief in this appeal.
{¶ 7} Proceedings conducted pursuant to
{¶ 8} In Durastanti v. Durastanti, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190655, 2020-Ohio-4687, ¶ 15, the court noted
that an error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the order, or [2] that the credible evidence of record is insufficient to support the granting or denial of the protection order, or [3] that the magistrate abused the magistrate‘s discretion in including or failing to include specific terms in the protection order.
{¶ 9} In his objections to the trial court, B.A. does not argue that an error of law occurred, that the magistrate‘s decision is defective on its face, that the evidence was insufficient to grant the order, or that the magistrate failed to include or omitted any specific term. Instead, B.A. argues he had a valid excuse for failing to appear at the hearing — that his attorney did not appear or seek a continuance.
{¶ 10} The grant or denial of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. C.M.R. v. B.T.B.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111959, 2023-Ohio-1973, ¶ 11, citing State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (1981). B.A. had already been granted a continuance of the hearing, but did not contact the court or appear on the scheduled date. Because B.A. had already been granted a continuance in the matter and failed to contact the court or appear, we cannot say the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable by overruling B.A.‘s objection.
{¶ 11} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR