May v. Jarosz , 2023 Ohio 511 ( 2023 )

[Cite as May v. Jarosz, 2023-Ohio-511.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
DONALD R. MAY, JR., CASE NO. 2022-L-063
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Civil Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division
TARA D. JAROSZ,
Defendant-Appellant. Trial Court No. 2020 CV 00575
OPINION
Decided: February 21, 2023
Judgment: Affirmed
R. Russell Kubyn, Kubyn & Ghaster, 8373 Mentor Avenue, Mentor, OH 44060 (For
Plaintiff-Appellee).
Thomas J. Sacerich, 8302 Yellowbrick Road, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Defendant-
Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Tara D. Jarosz (“Ms. Jarosz”), appeals from the judgment of the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which denied her “Motion for
Extension of Time to File Objections” after adopting a magistrate’s decision establishing
a child support order for her two minor children with appellee and obligor, Donald R. May,
Jr. (“Mr. May”).
{¶2} In her sole assignment of error, Ms. Jarosz contends the trial court erred
when it denied her motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate’s
decision due to the court reporter’s delay in transcribing the hearing.
{¶3} After a thorough review of the record and relevant law, we find Ms. Jarosz’s
assignment of error to be without merit. Juv.R. 40 provides that objections are to be filed
within 14 days from the date the magistrate’s decision is filed and that the transcript is to
be filed within 30 days after the objections are filed. If parties choose to supplement their
objections based on the transcript, they may seek to supplement their timely-filed
objections. Thus, the rule contemplates that objections will be filed prior to the transcript.
In addition, Ms. Jarosz failed to make a showing of “good cause” since she failed to show
she was prevented from timely filing the objections themselves.
{¶4} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶5} The parties share two minor children, “C.M.,” born July 20, 2015, and
“C.G.M.,” born April 22, 2018. In July 2020, Mr. May filed a complaint for the allocation
of parental rights and responsibilities. Ultimately, in 2021, after a trial, the trial court
adopted the magistrate’s recommendation that the parties exercise shared parenting with
a 50/50 split of time with each parent.
{¶6} Shortly thereafter, Mr. May filed a “Motion to Establish Child Support Order”
to reflect the parties’ shared parenting plan. After a trial, on May 3, 2022, the magistrate
issued its recommendation based on the parties’ testimony and a child support
computation worksheet. More specifically, based upon the equal division of parenting
time in the shared parenting plan, extraordinary costs associated with parenting time, and
the income disparity between the parties, the magistrate found the amount calculated by
the child support computation worksheet would be unjust, inappropriate, and not in the
2
Case No. 2022-L-063
best interest of the minor children. Thus, a further deviation was warranted. The
magistrate recommended that the monthly child support order be set for Mr. May, as the
obligor, at $215.33 per child, plus processing, a cash medical support obligation of $20.54
per child, plus processing, as well as health insurance coverage for both children. The
judgment entry also notified the parties that they may file objections within 14 days
pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(3).
{¶7} On the same day, the trial court independently reviewed the matter and
adopted the magistrate’s decision in full.
{¶8} Ms. Jarosz filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections” on May
17, requesting an extension of 45 days to file her objections to the magistrate’s decision
because the court reporter she retained would not be able to complete the transcript for
at least 21 days, plus an additional ten days for her counsel to review the transcript and
complete the objections.
{¶9} On June 10, the trial court denied Ms. Jarosz’s motion, finding it not well-
taken.
{¶10} Ms. Jarosz raises one error on appeal:
{¶11} “The Trial Court erred when it failed to extend time to object to the
Magistrate’s Decision.”
Standard of Review
{¶12} This court has held that the trial court has broad discretion in determining
whether to grant a motion for an extension of time to file objections to a magistrate’s
decision. In re E.B., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-077, 2014-Ohio-5764, ¶ 27. Thus, a trial
3
Case No. 2022-L-063
court’s decision to grant or deny such motion will be reversed on appeal only for an abuse
of discretion. Id.{¶13} An abuse of discretion may be found in a trial court’s “‘failure to exercise
sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-
CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 11 (8th Ed.Rev.2004).
{¶14} When a pure issue of law is involved in appellate review, the mere fact that
the reviewing court would decide the issue differently is enough to find error. Id. at ¶ 67.
By contrast, where the issue on review has been confided to the discretion of the trial
court, the mere fact that the reviewing court would have reached a different result is not
enough, without more, to find error. Id.
Juv.R. 40
{¶15} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(i), regarding objections to a magistrate’s decision,
provides that “[a] party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within
fourteen days of the filing of the decision * * *.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶16} Moreover, Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides, in relevant part: “An objection
to a factual finding * * * shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to
the magistrate relevant to that finding * * *. * * * The objecting party shall file the transcript
* * * with the court within thirty days after filing objections * * *. If a party files timely
objections prior to the date on which a transcript is prepared, the party may seek leave of
court to supplement the objections.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶17} As our review of the record reveals, Ms. Jarosz filed her motion for an
extension to file objections on the fourteenth day. In an apposite case, In re E.B., supra,we explained that “Juv.R. 40 provides that a party objecting to a magistrate’s decision
4
Case No. 2022-L-063
may file his or her objections within 14 days of the filing of the decision, and shall file the
transcript within 30 days after filing his or her objections. Further, the rule provides that
if the objecting party files timely objections before the transcript is prepared, he or she
may seek leave of court to supplement the objections. As a result, the fact that the
transcript is not yet prepared is no excuse for failing to timely file objections within 14
days. In fact, the rule contemplates that the objections are to be filed within 14 days of
the filing of the magistrate’s decision and that the transcript is to be filed within 30 days
after the objections are filed. If the party chooses to supplement his or her objections
based on the transcript, he or she may seek to supplement his or her timely-filed
objections.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 25.
{¶18} Similarly, in DePizzo v. Stabile, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2006-T-0027,
2006-Ohio-6102, we found the circumstances of the case justified the denial of the
appellant’s motion for an extension of time where it was filed on the last day for filing
objections, there was no indication that she was unable to obtain a transcript or file
objections within the 14-day period, and she acknowledged that her objections would
raise legal issues – not factual ones. Id. at ¶ 12. Thus, we determined that the appellant
did not demonstrate the existence of circumstances that prevented her from timely filing
objections to the magistrate’s decision, aptly remarking that “[p]arties are not entitled to
extensions of time merely because they have timely requested an extension.” Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶19} Juv. R. 40(D)(5), regarding extensions of time for filing objections to a
magistrate’s decision, provides: “For good cause shown, the court shall allow a
reasonable extension of time for a party to * * * file objections to a magistrate’s decision.
‘Good cause’ includes, but is not limited to, a failure by the clerk to timely serve the party
5
Case No. 2022-L-063
seeking the extension with the magistrate’s order or decision.” Most fundamentally, “[i]n
order to establish good cause, the objecting party must show that he or she was
prevented from timely filing the objections themselves.” (Emphasis added.) In re E.B. at
¶ 29.
{¶20} A review of Ms. Jarosz’s motion reveals her counsel’s unsworn allegations
that he retained the services of a court reporter who would not be able to complete the
transcript for “at least another three (3) weeks per [his] phone conversation with her.”
{¶21} Firstly, Ms. Jarosz’s reasoning, i.e., that the court reporter must transcribe
the hearing before she can file objections, does not support a finding of good cause
because Juv.R. 40(D) does not require the transcript be prepared before objections are
filed. See In re L.P.R., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-144, 2012-Ohio-1671, ¶ 44, abrogated
on other grounds, State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196, 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784(Appellant’s desire to not file objections until after she reviewed the transcript does not
amount to “good cause” for an extension of time under Juv.R. 40(D)(5)).
{¶22} Secondly, Ms. Jarosz submitted no affidavits or evidentiary materials of any
kind in support of her motion for an extension. See Hasch v. Hasch, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2007-L-127, 2008-Ohio-1689, ¶ 24 (The appellant was not entitled to an extension
because there was no affidavit or other evidentiary materials in the record supporting the
appellant’s motion for an extension).
{¶23} In sum, the rule provides that objections are to be filed within 14 days from
the date the magistrate’s decision is filed, and the transcript is to be filed within 30 days
after the objections are filed. Further, Ms. Jarosz failed to make a showing of “good
6
Case No. 2022-L-063
cause” for failing to timely file her objections. As a result, we cannot say the trial court
abused its discretion in denying her motion for an extension.
{¶24} Finding Ms. Jarosz’s sole assignment of error to be without merit, the
judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
7
Case No. 2022-L-063