Leffel v. Nassar , 2019 Ohio 5292 ( 2019 )

[Cite as Leffel v. Nassar, 2019-Ohio-5292.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
JENNIFER LEFFEL C.A. No. 17CA0080-M
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MICHAEL NASSAR COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellee CASE No. 13PA0104
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 23, 2019
TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Jennifer M. Leffel appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that adopted the magistrate’s decision and was entered on
October 19, 2017. We affirm.
I.
{¶2} This matter relates to the allocation of parental rights, shared parenting, and child
support for two minor children of which Ms. Leffel is the mother and Michael Nassar is the
father. In March and June of 2017, a hearing was held before the magistrate on multiple motions
filed by Ms. Leffel and Mr. Nassar. A magistrate’s decision was issued on October 19, 2017,
establishing a shared parenting plan, finding Ms. Leffel in contempt, finding Mr. Nassar to not
be in contempt, and recommending an award of attorney’s fees to Mr. Nassar. Also on October
19, 2017, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and entered judgment. In accordance
with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii), the magistrate’s decision conspicuously indicated that “[a] party
2
shall not assign as error on appeal the [c]ourt’s adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of
law in that decision unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion
as required by Civ.R. 53.” Likewise, the magistrate’s decision indicated that each party had
fourteen days from the filing date of the decision to file any objections.
{¶3} Neither party filed objections to the magistrate’s decision with the trial court. Ms.
Leffel now appeals, raising five assignments of error, which are stated below verbatim.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
WEIGHING SUBMITTED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE INCLUDING
POLICE REPORTS, WITNESS STATEMENTS, PHOTOS, PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT AND TESTIMONY FROM TRIAL COURT AND RULED
EVIDENCE AS HEARSAY. DUE TO THIS HIGH INTENSE SITUATION.
THE COURT ERRED BY ISSUING A GENERAL SHARED PARENTING
PLAN VERSUS SOLE CUSTODY TO APPELLEE WITH STANDARD
VISITATION TIME TO APPELLANT; SHARED PARENTING PLAN NOT IN
THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTEREST CONSIDERING THE SEVERE LEVEL
OF EXTREME CONFLICT BETWEEN APPELLEE AND APPELLANT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
AWARDING APPELLEE ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COSTS
TOTALING $1200.00.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THREE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MOTION OF CONTEMPT OF
APPELLEE FOR FAILURE TO PAY ANY AMOUNT OF CURRENT
EFFECTIVE AND ENFORCEABLE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER FOR 36 OF 60
MONTHS.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FOUR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT
FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF ORDER OF SUPERVISED VISITATION AT
4046 MEDINA ROAD DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN FAVOR OF
3
APPELLEE. MOTION FOR RELOCATION OF VISITATION DENIED FROM
FEBRUARY 1, 2017.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FIVE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING DAVID GEDROCK, TRIAL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT WITHDRAW MOTION FOR CHILD
SUPPORT ORDER REVIEW AND MODIFICATION ON GROUNDS THAT
IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE REQUEST.
{¶4} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), “[a] party may file written objections to a
magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court
has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).”
“If the court enters a judgment during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for
the filing of objections, the timely filing of objections to the magistrate’s decision shall operate
as an automatic stay of execution of the judgment until the court disposes of those objections and
vacates, modifies, or adheres to the judgment previously entered.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).
{¶5} In accordance with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii), the magistrate’s decision issued in this
matter conspicuously indicated that “[a] party shall not assign as error on appeal the [c]ourt’s
adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law in that decision unless the party timely and
specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53.” Likewise, the
magistrate’s decision indicated that each party had fourteen days from the filing date of the
decision to file any objections. Ms. Leffel did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision as
permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i).
{¶6} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides: “Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall
not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion,
whether or not specifically designated as [such] * * *, unless the party has objected to that
finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Accordingly, “[t]his Court has held
4
that when a party fails to properly object to a magistrate’s decision in accordance with Civ.R.
53(D)(3), the party has forfeited the right to assign those issues as error on appeal.” Adams v.
Adams, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 13CA0022, 2014-Ohio-1327, ¶ 6. “While a [party] who forfeits
such an argument still may argue plain error on appeal, this [C]ourt will not sua sponte undertake
a plain-error analysis if the [party] fails to do so.” (Alterations sic.) Bass-Fineberg Leasing, Inc.
v. Modern Auto Sales, Inc., 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0098-M, 2015-Ohio-46, ¶ 24, quoting
McMaster v. Akron Health Dept., 189 Ohio App. 3d 222, 2010-Ohio-3851, ¶ 20 (9th Dist.); see
also State v. White, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 23955 and 23959, 2008-Ohio-2432, ¶ 33 (“[T]his
Court will not construct a claim of plain error on behalf of an appellant who fails to raise such an
argument in her brief.”). Ms. Leffel has not argued plain error to this Court.
{¶7} Because Ms. Leffel has failed to preserve for appellate review the issues set forth
in her assignments of error, we decline to address them. Ms. Leffel’s assignments of error are
therefore overruled.
III.
{¶8} Ms. Leffel’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
5
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.
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JENNIFER M. LEFFEL, pro se, Appellant.
MICHAEL J. NASSAR, pro se, Appellee.