Vaughn v. Vaughn , 2022 Ohio 2533 ( 2022 )

[Cite as Vaughn v. Vaughn, 2022-Ohio-2533.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
LINDSAY VAUGHN, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2021-08-078
: OPINION ON
- vs - RECONSIDERATION
: 7/25/2022
JEFFERY A. VAUGHN, :
Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. 17DR39921
Stagnaro Hannigan Koop, Co., LPA, and Michaela M. Stagnaro, for appellee.
Stafford Law Co., L.P.A., and Joseph G. Stafford and Nicole A. Cruz, for appellant.
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jeffery A. Vaughn ("Husband"), timely moved this court pursuant
to App.R. 26(A) to reconsider multiple aspects of our May 31, 2022 decision issued in
Vaughn v. Vaughn, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-08-078, 2022-Ohio-1805 ("Vaughn I").
Appellee, Lindsay Vaughn ("Wife"), filed a memorandum in opposition to Husband's motion
Warren CA2021-08-078
for reconsideration. Wife also moved this court for an award of attorney fees.
{¶ 2} Upon consideration of Husband's motion for reconsideration, and Wife's
memorandum in opposition, this court grants Husband's motion as it relates to Husband's
second argument presented in his second assignment of error only.1 That being, whether
it was error for the domestic relations court to overrule Husband's objection to the
magistrate's decision barring him from cross-examining Wife at the October 7, 2020 final
divorce hearing about matters that Wife had previously testified to at the final divorce
hearing held on September 18, 2019. In all other respects, Husband's motion for
reconsideration is denied. So too is Wife's motion for attorney fees.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 3} In Vaughn I, this court rejected Husband's claim that it was reversible error for
the domestic relations court to overrule Husband's objection to the magistrate's decision
barring him from cross-examining Wife at the October 7, 2020 final divorce hearing about
matters that Wife had previously testified to at the final divorce hearing held on September
18, 2019. Id. at ¶ 33 and 34. In so doing, this court found Husband "did not proffer what
he believed Wife would testify to [on cross-examination] had he been given that
opportunity." Id. at ¶ 33. Therefore, because Husband did not proffer what he believed
Wife would testify to on cross-examination, this court held that "because this court has
1. We note that Husband's other arguments raised in his motion for reconsideration either (1) did not call to
this court's attention an obvious error in its decision or (2) did not raise an issue for our consideration that was
either not at all or was not fully considered by us when it should have been. Erzurum v. Erzurum, 7th Dist.
Mahoning No. 20 MA 0012, 2021-Ohio-2014, ¶ 4 ("The test generally applied is whether the motion for
reconsideration calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for our
consideration that was either not at all or was not fully considered by us when it should have been").
Husband's other arguments instead merely showcased his disagreement with this court's conclusions and/or
attempted to rehash the arguments Husband had presented in his initial appeal. A motion for reconsideration
will not be granted on either of those bases. See Grothaus v. Warner, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-115,
2008-Ohio-6683, ¶ 2 (a motion for reconsideration is not to be used "where a party simply disagrees with the
appellate court's logic or conclusions"); and Appenzeller v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No.
17AP-747, 2018-Ohio-1698, ¶ 4 (a motion for reconsideration will be denied "where the moving party 'simply
seeks to rehash the arguments' presented in the initial appeal"), quoting Garfield Hts. City School Dist. v.
State Bd. of Edn., 85 Ohio App.3d 117, 127 (10th Dist.1992).
-2-
Warren CA2021-08-078
nothing to review, Husband cannot demonstrate any resulting prejudice from the domestic
relations court's decision." Id at ¶ 34.
{¶ 4} On June 10, 2022, Husband filed a motion pursuant to App.R. 26(A)
requesting this court reconsider our decision rejecting, among other things, his second
argument presented in his second assignment of error in light of the language found in
Evid.R. 103(A)(2). Pursuant to that rule, "[o]ffer of proof is not necessary if evidence is
excluded during cross-examination." Given the language found in Evid.R. 103(A)(2), to the
degree this court's decision in Vaughn I found Husband's argument lacked merit given that
Husband did not proffer what he believed Wife would testify to on cross-examination at the
October 7, 2020 final divorce hearing had Husband been given the opportunity to question
Wife about matters Wife had previously testified to at the final divorce hearing held on
September 18, 2019, that holding is hereby reconsidered. In all other respects, this court's
decision in Vaughn I remains unchanged.
Question Presented on Reconsideration
{¶ 5} On reconsideration, we are again tasked with determining whether it was
reversible error for the domestic relations court to overrule Husband's objection to the
magistrate's decision barring him from cross-examining Wife at the October 7, 2020 final
divorce hearing regarding Wife's previous testimony from the final divorce hearing held on
September 18, 2019. Husband argues the magistrate's decision limiting his cross-
examination of Wife constituted a violation of his right to due process. Husband also argues
the magistrate's decision to limit his cross-examination of Wife at the October 7, 2020 final
divorce hearing was "not premised on applicable law, but on the trial court's ill will and
hostility towards [him]." We find no merit to either of Husband's arguments.
Due Process of Law Standard
{¶ 6} The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that
-3-
Warren CA2021-08-078
no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The state of Ohio also guarantees the right of due process of law in Article I, Section 16, of
the Ohio Constitution. Christiana Trust v. Berter, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-109,
2020-Ohio-727, ¶ 20. "The fundamental requirements of due process are notice and the
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Lemasters v.
Lemasters, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2018-06-018, 2019-Ohio-4395, ¶ 35, citing Mathews
v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893 (1976). Due process also "provides the right
to confront and cross-examine witnesses prior to the deprivation of life, liberty, or property
interest." Hall v. Hall, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 16-COA-034, 2017-Ohio-580, ¶ 16, citing
Shimko v. Lobe, 124 Ohio App.3d 336 (10th Dist.1997). "That right attaches in divorce
proceedings." Blevins v. Blevins, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2018-CA-23, 2019-Ohio-297, ¶ 35,
citing Council v. Council, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23514, 2010-Ohio-3445, ¶ 29. A party
may be denied due process when the parties involved in divorce proceedings are given
different degrees of latitude to develop testimony regarding the matters at issue. Hall at ¶
18, citing Cohen v. Cohen, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 99CA52, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 202 (Jan.
22, 2001).
Analysis
{¶ 7} In this case, although we are still of the opinion the magistrate should have
given Husband the full opportunity to cross-examine Wife at the October 7, 2020 final
divorce hearing about matters that Wife had previously testified to at the final divorce
hearing held on September 18, 2019, we find such error was, at worst, harmless error that
does not require this case be reversed and remanded for yet another final divorce hearing
to allow Husband to question Wife about matters she testified to nearly three years ago.
This is because, as the record firmly establishes, any additional questions Husband could
have asked Wife at the October 7, 2020 final divorce hearing about matters Wife had
-4-
Warren CA2021-08-078
testified to at the September 18, 2019 hearing would not have added any meaningful
substance to the proceedings and served as nothing more than Husband's continued
attempts to harass Wife and interject himself in matters that are no longer his concern. This
is necessarily the case when considering Husband was precluded from offering any of his
own exhibits or calling any of his own witnesses (other than himself) to contradict the
testimony and evidence that Wife had presented as part of her case-in-chief.
{¶ 8} This becomes clear when reviewing the questions Husband was permitted to
ask Wife at the October 7, 2020 final divorce hearing. This included Husband asking Wife
on multiple occasions and in multiple different iterations: (1) why Wife left her previous
employment; (2) if Wife allowed their daughter, E.C.V., to call Husband on his birthday; (3)
where Wife lived when she was single prior to Wife marrying Husband; (4) if Husband ever
stayed the night in the house that Wife moved into after Wife moved out of the marital home;
(5) if Husband was a youth football coach for their son, J.A.V.; and (6) whether Wife included
Husband's phone number and e-mail address on the forms Wife provided to the children's
elementary school.
{¶ 9} The record indicates Husband also routinely editorialized and added his own
commentary to many of the questions he posed to Wife, thereby turning what was supposed
to be Husband's opportunity to cross-examine Wife into something more akin to Husband
taking the stand and himself testifying. This happened so frequently that the magistrate
had to pause the proceedings on numerous occasions to remind Husband to save his
comments for the appropriate time when he took the stand to testify as part of his own case-
in-chief. Therefore, despite Husband's claims, we find no merit to Husband's claim alleging
the magistrate's decision limiting his cross-examination of Wife constituted a violation of his
right to due process. We also find no merit to Husband's claim alleging the magistrate's
decision to limit his cross-examination of Wife was "not premised on applicable law, but on
-5-
Warren CA2021-08-078
the trial court's ill will and hostility towards [him]."
{¶ 10} In so holding, we note the domestic relations court overruled Husband's
objection to the magistrate's decision based upon its finding, in pertinent part, the following:
The essence of [Husband's] objection is that even though he
never produced documentation of his separate property
interests, he could have successfully proven his case had he
been given the full opportunity to cross-examine [Wife] about
those interests.
Having considered [Husband's] argument, the Court agrees
[Husband] should have been given the full opportunity to cross-
examine [Wife] on all testimony, not just the testimony of events
since the last day of trial. However, the Court finds that
[Husband] was no more adept at cross-examination than he was
at complying with Court Orders, working cooperatively with
Mother, or meeting the expectations of his attorneys so they
could continue to represent him. In other words, asking the
simple question, "Isn't it true I have a separate interest?" would
not have, in itself, proved his case. [Wife] would have had every
right to say, "I don't know. I need to see the paperwork that
proves it." [Husband] had previously elected not to hand over
that paperwork.
Given the length of this case and given the total lack of
cooperation by [Husband] throughout it, the Court is not going
to reschedule another limited trial date in order to give
[Husband] the opportunity to ask questions that likely will not
change the outcome of this case. All of his aggressive
techniques have hurt [Husband] in the end. Had he instead
been forthcoming with information from the beginning,
respectful with Mother in his communication, and cooperative
with his attorneys, this case could have been over a long time
ago with [Husband] likely enjoying everything he now continues
to fight for.
We agree with the domestic relations court's decision and adopt the domestic relations
court's rationale as if it was this court's own.
Conclusion
{¶ 11} For the reasons set forth above, we find any error the magistrate may have
made by barring Husband from cross-examining Wife at the October 7, 2020 final divorce
hearing about matters that Wife had previously testified to at the September 18, 2019
-6-
Warren CA2021-08-078
hearing was, at worst, harmless error given that any additional questions Husband could
have asked Wife about the testimony and evidence she provided at the that final divorce
hearing would not have added any meaningful substance to the proceedings. Therefore,
because we still find no reversible error in the domestic relations court's decision, Husband
second argument presented in his second assignment of error is again overruled.
{¶ 12} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-7-