Young v. YoungYoung v. Young
Dated: September 28, 2009
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Brian Young, appeals from a judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas that purported to be a ruling on the appellant‘s objections to a magistrate‘s decision that designated Appellee, Rachel Young, as the residential parent of the parties’ three minor children. This Court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
{¶2} Brian and Rachel Young were married on May 6, 2000 and had three children together during their marriage. On June 27, 2007, Brian filed this divorce action against Rachel and sought to enforce a separation agreement and shared parenting plan that the parties had signed earlier that year. The trial court eventually adopted the parties’ separation agreement, with the exception of its provision for the allocation of parental rights because the parties reserved the right to litigate that issue.
{¶4} Brian filed several objections to the magistrate‘s decision and supported his objections with a transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate. The trial court later issued an order that stated, in its entirety:
“This is a ruling on the objections filed by the plaintiff to the magistrate‘s decision filed June 11, 2008. In reaching its decision, the court has reviewed the magistrate‘s decision, memorand[a] of counsel and the transcript. The court finds that the objections should be overruled.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.”
{¶5} Brian appeals from that order and raises five assignments of error.
II.
{¶6} Initially, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to review this appeal.
{¶7}
{¶8} Moreover, “the document purporting to be a judgment entry must disclose the present intention of the court to terminate the action and should contain a sufficiently definitive formal statement indicating such an intention.” (Citations omitted.) Vanest v. Pillsbury Co. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 525, 536, fn. 4. This Court has held that a journal entry stating merely the defendant “owes” plaintiff the judgment amount did not constitute a definitive statement of relief and, therefore, did not constitute a final, appealable order. See Estate of Tollet v. Multilink, Inc., 9th Dist. No. 04CA008457, 2005-Ohio-338, at ¶9.
{¶9} The order at issue in this appeal purported to be a ruling on the appellant‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision.
{¶10} Therefore, to constitute a final, appealable order, a journal entry disposing of objections to a magistrate‘s decision must explicitly rule on each of the objections and must state its ruling in definitive terms. The journal entry at issue here, although it purported to constitute the trial court‘s ruling on the objections, stated only that the court found that the objections “should be overruled.” Although the trial court expressed its finding that the objections ought to be overruled, it did not include any definitive language to actually overrule them.
Appeal dismissed.
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.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, J.
CONCURS
CARR, J.
DISSENTS, SAYING:
{¶12} I respectfully dissent from the dismissal of this appeal. Although the majority‘s interpretation of the trial court‘s language is technically correct, I do not agree that the order is not final and appealable. Even though the trial judge used the word “should,” his clear intention was to explicitly overrule the objections to the magistrate‘s decision and that was the
APPEARANCES:
JOHN E. SCHOONOVER and JEANNE T. DEMONTE, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
PATRICIA A. RODGERS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
CHRISTOPHER SCHMITT, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.