Ward v. KiernanWard v. Kiernan
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Jonathan Ward (“Husband“) has attempted to appeal the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. This Court dismisses the appeal.
I.
{¶2} Husband and Appellee Melissa Kiernan (“Wife“) were married June 26, 1998. Four children were born of the marriage. In September 2016, Wife filed a complaint for divorce. Husband answered and also counterclaimed for divorce.
{¶3} Ultimately, the matter proceeded to a final hearing before the trial judge. At the time of the final hearing, Husband‘s counsel was allowed to withdraw. Husband declined the trial court‘s offer to continue the matter, and, instead, proceeded pro se.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DIVISION OF PROPERTY ORDER[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS AWARD OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT TO WIFE WHEN IT IMPUTED INCOME OF $200,000 TO HUSBAND[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS AWARD OF CHILD SUPPORT WHEN IT IMPUTED INCOME OF $200,000 TO THE HUSBAND AS OBLIGOR[.]
{¶5} Husband has raised three assignments of error for our review. However, because we determine that we lack jurisdiction over the matter, we cannot reach the merits of these arguments.
{¶6} “This Court is obligated to raise matters related to our jurisdiction sua sponte.” Schmitt v. Ward, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28877, 28910, 2018-Ohio-4401, ¶ 4, citing The Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Carl M. Geupel Constr. Co., Inc., 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186 (1972). “This Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from final appealable orders. In the absence of a final appealable order, this Court must dismiss the appeal.” (Internal citations omitted.) Schmitt at ¶ 4.
{¶7} ”
{¶8} Here, at the final hearing, both parties testified and numerous exhibits were admitted as evidence. Upon review of the evidence presented at the final hearing, it is clear that the trial court‘s judgment entry fails to dispose of all of the property of the parties. See id. at ¶ 3, 5. While this Court will detail the property that it believes was omitted from the entry, to ensure that the next judgment entry is final and appealable, the parties and trial court are encouraged to closely examine the evidence admitted at the final hearing to ensure all of the property is accounted for.
{¶9} First, the trial court noted in its judgment entry that Husband received a personal injury settlement; however, the trial court did not further address it in the entry. At the hearing, Wife offered Husband‘s affidavit of property as evidence. That exhibit was admitted and contains several items that were not disposed of by the trial court. That affidavit lists three additional vehicles (a 1990 Ford, a 2003 Chevy, and a 1995 Dodge) that are not discussed in the judgment entry. At trial, Husband testified to having multiple vehicles, including a 2006 Isuzu which is not listed on the affidavit of property or discussed in the entry. And while the trial court ordered that Husband was entitled to the bank accounts in his name and Wife was entitled to the bank accounts in her name, Husband‘s affidavit of property lists bank accounts that were titled in both parties’ names. It does not appear that these accounts were addressed in the decree. Wife also submitted a document labeled “Summary of Lifestyle During Marriage[.]” That document includes several items of personal property that are not discussed in the decree including four canoes, dogs, a large collection of jewelry, at least one piece which was worth $20,000, lingerie,
{¶10} Given the foregoing, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this attempted appeal. Notwithstanding, in the interests of judicial economy, we will briefly address some other issues that came to our attention while reviewing the matter for purposes of finality; issues that should be taken into consideration upon remand.
III.
{¶11} As this Court lacks jurisdiction over this attempted appeal, it is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
CORINNE HOOVER SIX, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
RANDAL A. LOWRY and ADAM MORRIS, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.