T.H. v. VilloniT.H. v. Villoni
Dated: July 20, 2020
SCHAFER, Judge.
{1} Respondent-Appellant, Vincent Villoni, appeals the judgment entry of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas adopting the magistrate‘s decision granting a protection order. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
{2} On July 6, 2018, Petitioner-Appellee, T.H., filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order pursuant to
{3} T.H. appeared at the hearing along with his son. Mr. Villoni appeared with his wife. Following the hearing, the magistrate found that Mr. Villoni repeatedly traveled on to the parcel of property where T.H.‘s home was located and confronted T.H. and his family members. The magistrate found that these events culminated in a confrontation on July 3, 2018,
{4} Mr. Villoni filed “objection papers” on August 16, 2018, stating that he objected to the magistrate‘s ruling on the CPO. Mr. Villoni indicated that he would order transcripts to supplement the record and to further support his objection to the magistrate‘s decision. On September 19, 2018, the trial court issued a judgment entry ruling on Mr. Villoni‘s objection. The trial court found that Mr. Villoni did not make a specific objection in his filing. The trial court noted that Mr. Villoni did not indicate whether he believed there was an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the order, nor did he allege any manner in which the credible evidence of the record was insufficient to support the granting of the protection order. Further, the trial court found that thirty-four days passed since Mr. Villoni filed his objection, but no transcript of the proceedings had been filed. Therefore, the trial court found that Mr. Villoni failed to meet his burden in presenting an objection pursuant to
{5} Thereafter, Mr. Villoni filed a “motion to reconsider the dismissal of the objection.” The motion indicated that Mr. Villoni had recently retained counsel and, although he ordered the
{6} Mr. Villoni timely appealed the trial court‘s adoption of the protection order and raised one assignment of error for our review. T.H. did not file a merit brief in this matter. Thus, we may accept the Mr. Villoni‘s statements of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if his merit brief reasonably appears to sustain such action.
II.
Assignment of Error
Competent credible evidence was not presented to support the trial court findings and conclusions that [Mr. Villoni] engaged in menacing by stalking as a basis for granting the civil stalking protection order.
{7} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Villoni contends that factual findings were not supported by competent credible evidence, and the trial court erred by concluding that an order of protection should be granted. Within this single assignment of error, Mr. Villoni raises two sub-issues. First, Mr. Villoni questions whether the court erred when it granted the civil stalking protection order against him and appears to contend that the trial court‘s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Second, Mr. Villoni questions whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the essential elements of the civil stalking protection order.
{8} Because Mr. Villoni attempts to challenge both the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence in a single assignment of error, we pause to recognize that, “a review of the
{9}
{10} On the fourteenth day after the trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision in this matter, Mr. Villoni filed “objection papers.” While Mr. Villoni indicated a general objection to the protection order, his filing did not state the nature of his objection. As noted above, Mr. Villoni had the burden to show the error of law, defect, or lack of credible evidence to support the granting of the protection order. See
{11} Although Mr. Villoni subsequently filed the transcript of the hearing and requested the trial court reconsider its decision to overrule his objection, the trial court denied the request. Mr. Villoni did not challenge the trial court‘s denial of his request on appeal. Still, throughout his merit brief, Mr. Villoni references the transcript, which was not in the record for the trial court to consider when it ruled on Mr. Villoni‘s objections. Assuming that Mr. Villoni intended to challenge the weight or sufficiency of the evidence in his objections before the trial court as required prior to appeal by
{12} Even if this Court were able to reach the merits of Mr. Villoni‘s arguments raised for the first time on appeal, our review would be inhibited because his arguments are based entirely
{13} Therefore, Mr. Villoni‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{14} Mr. Villoni‘s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
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(C). 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 Appellant.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
CARR, P. J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
PAUL GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
T. H., pro se, Appellee.