Zemba v. Zemba, Ct2006-0083 (9-28-2007) ( 2007 )

OPINION {¶ 1} On July 21, 2003, appellant, Kristina Zemba, and appellee, Stephen Zemba, were married. The parties have a child born prior to the marriage, Kailey Zemba born August 20, 2003. On October 31, 2005, appellee filed a complaint for divorce.

{¶ 2} A hearing before a magistrate was held on July 21, 2006. The magistrate issued a decision on September 20, 2006. By judgment entry/decree of divorce filed November 3, 2006, the trial court granted the parties a divorce.

{¶ 3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

I {¶ 4} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT AWARDED UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME WITH THE MINOR CHILD TO APPELLEE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF HIS MENTAL IMPAIRMENT." II {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN AWARDING 100% OF THE PARTIES BUSINESS, STEPHEN ZEMBA EXCAVATING, LLC, TO APPELLEE." III {¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN AWARDING ALL THREE (3) PARCELS OF MARITAL REAL ESTATE, THOSE BEING THE MARITAL RESIDENCE, RENTAL PROPERTY AND A MEXICO TIME SHARE, TO APPELLEE." I, II, III {¶ 7} Appellant appeals the trial court's November 3, 2006 judgment entry/decree of divorce. Appellant assigns as error three assignments, all of which involve issues and disputes as to the facts presented to the magistrate.

{¶ 8} The magistrate's decision was rendered on September 20, 2006 and the terms of the decision were incorporated into the trial court's November 3, 2006 judgment entry/decree of divorce. A timely appeal was filed on December 4, 2006.

{¶ 9} The magistrate's decision included a boxed warning for failing to file objections pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) which states the following:

{¶ 10} "Waiver of right to assign adoption by court as error onappeal. 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 a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)."

{¶ 11} There were no objections filed with the trial court pursuant to said rule. We therefore conclude appellant's assignments of error have not been properly perfected.

{¶ 12} Assignments of Error I, II, III are denied.

{¶ 13} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division is hereby affirmed.

By Farmer, J. Gwin, P.J. and Wise, J. concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division is affirmed.