Danczak v. Danczak , 2023 Ohio 1032 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Danczak v. Danczak, 2023-Ohio-1032.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
DENNIS DANCZAK, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 111302
v. :
KARA LYNN DANCZAK, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 30, 2023
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division
Case No. DR-14-354294
Appearances:
Dennis Danczak, pro se.
Michael R. Bassett, for appellee.
LISA B. FORBES, P.J.:
Appellant Dennis Danczak, (“Father”) acting pro se, appeals the trial
court’s January 20, 2022 journal entry denying his motion for findings of fact and
conclusions of law, assigning error related to the trial court’s January 5, 2o22
modification of child support. After reviewing the facts of the case and the pertinent
law, we dismiss Father’s appeal as untimely.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In this divorce case, Father, and appellee Kara Danczak (“Mother”)
filed various motions with the trial court. Pertinent to this appeal is Mother’s motion
to modify child support.
On January 5, 2022, the trial court issued two journal entries. The
first overruled Father’s Objections to magistrate’s decision. The second was an
eight-page journal entry that adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted
Mother’s motion to modify child support, which included findings of fact and
conclusions of law and was accompanied by the worksheet that was used to compute
child support and cash medical support. Father did not file a direct appeal from this
final order. Rather, on January 11, 2022, Father filed a “motion for findings of facts
and conclusions of law” pursuant to Civ.R. 52.
On January 20, 2022, the trial court denied Father’s motion for
findings of facts and conclusions of law, acknowledging that its January 5, 2022
journal entry “fully compl[ied] with Civil Rule 52 and sets forth facts and
conclusions of law adequate to permit a higher court to review the decision.”
It is from this order that Father appeals raising the following three
assignments of error:
The final appealable order at issue should be reversed and vacated
because the unreasonable decision fails to adhere to the strict
documentation requirements necessary for a court to properly evaluate
and modify child support payments in direct contravention to the Ohio
Revised Code, most notably O.R.C. § 3119.04.
The trial court committed reversible error by granting [Mother] an
annual credit in the amount of $15,000 for her alleged work-related
child care expenses when the credit is not permitted by law and was not
supported by the record.
The lower court abused its discretion by denying [Father] the 10%
annual reduction in child support payments without any justifiable
cause given that [Father] meets the qualifying guidelines specified in
O.R.C. § 3119.051.
II. Law and Analysis
At the outset, we must determine whether Father’s appeal is timely.
Father’s assignments of error relate to the trial court’s January 5, 2022 journal entry
granting Mother’s motion to modify child support. Father filed his direct appeal on
February 18, 2022, and, although he attached the January 20, 2022 journal entry
denying his Civ.R. 52 motion to the notice of appeal, his assignments of error relate
to the trial court’s January 5, 2022 journal entry.
Pursuant to App.R. 4(A), appellants must file a notice of appeal
“within 30 days” of the trial court’s entry of a final appealable order. However, the
time to file a notice of appeal may be tolled if a party makes a “timely and appropriate
* * * request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Civ.R. 52 * * *.”
App.R. 4(B)(2)(d).
This court has stated that an appellant is not permitted “to make an
‘end run’ around App.R. 4(A) by filing an inappropriate Civ.R. 52 motion.” Stafford
& Stafford Co., L.P.A. v. Steele, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99554, 2013-Ohio-4042,
¶ 20. “In general, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is not
‘appropriate’ pursuant to App.R. 4(B)(2) if the trial court incorporated the findings
of fact and conclusions of law into its original judgment.” Theriot v. Hetrick, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109364, 2020-Ohio-6995, ¶ 20. Therefore, when the trial court
issues findings of fact and conclusions of law in its original judgment entry, “[a]
subsequent motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law [is] superfluous. And
being superfluous, the motion [does] not toll the running of the time for appeal.”
Besman v. Leventhal, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104414, 2017-Ohio-464, ¶ 10. See
also Bonnette v. Bonnette, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010175, 2013-Ohio-981, ¶ 6
(concluding that a Civ.R. 52 motion for findings of fact and conclusion of law did not
toll the time to appeal when a divorce decree already included separate findings of
fact and conclusions of law).
Here, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in its
January 5, 2022 judgment entry granting Mother’s motion to modify child support.
Therefore, in the case at hand, Father’s Civ.R. 52 motion for findings of fact and
conclusions of law was inappropriate and did not toll the time to appeal.1 See
Besman; Bonnette.
Father’s attempt to appeal from the trial court’s denial of his
inappropriate Civ.R. 52 motion appears to be an attempt to “bootstrap” his appeal.
“Bootstrapping” is “the utilization of a subsequent order to indirectly
and untimely appeal a prior order that was never directly appealed.”
State v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102320, 2015-Ohio-5135,
1 As noted, Father attached the January 20, 2022 journal entry denying his motion
for findings of fact and conclusions of law to his February 18, 2022 notice of appeal. Had
Father raised error related to the denial of his motion, those assignments of error may
have been reviewable.
¶ 9. Such attempt is “procedurally anomalous and inconsistent with
the appellate rules that contemplate a direct relationship between the
order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result
of that order” and is disfavored. Williamson [at ¶ 9], citing State v.
Church, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68590, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4838(Nov. 2, 1995); Bd. of Health v. Petro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104882,
2017-Ohio-1164, ¶ 12 (noting this court’s consistent declination to
consider bootstrapped claims).
State v. Bhambra, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105283, 2017-Ohio-8485, ¶ 12.
Therefore, because the trial court’s January 5, 2022 journal entry was
a final appealable order, and Father did not file his notice of appeal until
February 18, 2022, Father did not appeal within the 30 days prescribed by App.R. 4.
Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to hear the merits any of Father’s
assignments of error and Father’s appeal is dismissed. Claybrooks v. Giant Eagle,
Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104347, 2016-Ohio-7966, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Pendell v.
Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 60, 531 N.E.2d 713 (1988) (“[w]here
a notice of appeal is not filed within the time prescribed by law, the reviewing court
is without jurisdiction to consider issues that should have been raised in the
appeal.”).
Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LISA B. FORBES, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR