Schwamb v. Eckard , 2021 Ohio 2825 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Schwamb v. Eckard, 
    2021-Ohio-2825
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    JENNIFER L. SCHWAMB                           JUDGES:
    Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
    Plaintiff-Appellee                    Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
    Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
    -vs-
    Case No. 2020 CA 00084
    MATTHEW L. ECKARD
    Defendant-Appellant                    OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                     Appeal from the Licking County Court of
    Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
    Division, Case No. 2020 DR 00617
    JUDGMENT:                                     Dismissed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                       August 12, 2021
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                        For Defendant-Appellant
    JENNIFER L. SCHWAMB                           MATTHEW L. ECKARD
    161 S. 36th Street                            5560 Chestnut Hills Road
    Newark, Ohio 43055                            Newark, Ohio 43055
    Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00084                                                                        2
    Hoffman, J.
    {¶1}     Plaintiff-appellant Jennifer L. Schwamb appeals the December 3, 2020
    Judgment Entry - Decree of Divorce entered by the Licking County Court of Common
    Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which granted a divorce to her and defendant-
    appellee Matthew L. Eckard1 and divided the parties' marital assets and debts.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    {¶2}     Appellant and Appellee were married on October 3, 2013. No children were
    born as issue of the marriage, however, the parties each have children from prior
    relationships.      The parties purchased the marital residence in September, 2016.
    Appellant and Appellee physically separated on May 26, 2017. Appellant remained in the
    residence and Appellee moved into an apartment.
    {¶3}     Appellant filed a complaint for divorce on June 26, 2020. Appellee filed an
    answer, but did not file a counterclaim for divorce. The trial court conducted a hearing on
    November 16, 2020.
    {¶4}     The parties disputed the duration of the marriage, each presenting
    conflicting testimony as to the events prompting Appellee’s departure from the marital
    residence and the parties’ behaviors toward one another subsequent thereto. The parties
    also disputed the marital and separate contributions made toward the marital residence
    and the upkeep thereof.
    {¶5}     Via Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce filed December 3, 2020, the trial
    court granted the parties a divorce. The trial court found “[t]he period of ‘during the
    marriage’ of the parties. . . [was]. . . the dates of October 3, 2013, through the date of the
    1  Appellee has not filed a brief in this Appeal. Appellee did, however, write a letter to this Court, which was
    filed on April 26, 2021, indicating his support of the trial court’s judgment.
    Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00084                                                    3
    final hearing, being November 9, 2020 [sic].” 
    Id. at 8
    . The trial court also found Appellant
    contributed $3,759.03 of her separate property toward the marital residence. The trial
    court determined the property was comprised of 92% marital property and 8% separate
    property. The trial court awarded Appellant one-half of the marital equity and the full
    amount it found to be her separate property.
    {¶6}   It is from the December 3, 2020 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce
    Appellant prosecutes this appeal.
    {¶7}   We begin by noting Appellant has failed to comply with App. R. 16, which
    provides:
    Brief of the Appellant. The appellant shall include in its brief, under
    the headings and in the order indicated, all of the following:
    (1) A table of contents, with page references.
    (2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other
    authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
    (3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with
    reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected.
    (4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references
    to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.
    (5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case,
    the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
    Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00084                                                        4
    (6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error
    presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in
    accordance with division (D) of this rule.
    (7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with
    respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons
    in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and
    parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be
    preceded by a summary.
    (8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.
    {¶8}   Appellant's brief does not satisfy the requirements of App. 16(A); therefore,
    is noncompliant. Compliance with the above-stated rule is mandatory. Zanesville v.
    Robinson, 5th Dist. Muskingum App. No. 09-CA-39, 
    2010-Ohio-4843
    , ¶ 26. “It is not the
    function of this court to construct a foundation for [an appellant's] claims; failure to comply
    with the rules governing practice in the appellate court is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal.”
    Musleve v. Musleve, 5th Dist. Stark App. No. 2007CA00314, 
    2008-Ohio-3961
    , ¶ 21. Such
    deficiencies permit this court to dismiss Appellant's appeal. State v. Darby, 5th Dist.
    Richland App. No. 2019 CA 0013, 
    2019-Ohio-2186
    , ¶¶ 21-24.
    {¶9}   Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2), we are not required to address issues which
    are not argued separately as assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A). Kremer
    v. Cox, 
    114 Ohio App.3d 41
    , 60, 
    682 N.E.2d 1006
     (1996); Hawley v. Ritley, 
    35 Ohio St.3d 157
    , 159, 
    519 N.E.2d 390
     (1988). We understand Appellant has filed this appeal pro se.
    Nevertheless, “like members of the bar, pro se litigants are required to comply with rules
    Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00084                                                        5
    of practice and procedure.” Hardy v. Belmont Correctional Inst., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-116,
    
    2006-Ohio-3316
    , ¶ 9. See, also, State v. Hall, 11th Dist. No. 2007-T-0022, 2008-Ohio-
    2128, ¶ 11. Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0005 4. Although “an appellate court will
    ordinarily indulge a pro se litigant where there is some semblance of compliance with the
    appellate rules,” Oyler v. Oyler, 5th Dist. Stark App. No. 2014CA00015, 
    2014-Ohio-3468
    ,
    ¶¶ 18-19, we find Appellant's noncompliance with the appellate rules is significant and
    her brief lacks any cogent argument. “[F]airness and justice are best served when a court
    disposes of a case on the merits”, however, we find this brief reflects a substantial
    disregard for the court rules which cannot be cured. DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 
    69 Ohio St.2d 189
    , 193, 
    431 N.E.2d 644
     (1982). We “may not construct legal arguments in
    support of an appellant's appeal.” Whitehall v. Ruckman, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-445, 2007-
    Ohio-6780, ¶ 20, quoting State ex rel. Petro v. Gold, 
    166 Ohio App.3d 371
    , 2006-Ohio-
    943, ¶ 94 (10th Dist.), appeal not allowed, 
    110 Ohio St.3d 1439
    , 
    2006-Ohio-3862
    ,
    reconsideration denied, 
    111 Ohio St.3d 1418
    , 2006–Ohio–5083.
    {¶10} Because we find Appellant’s brief so completely in derogation of App.R. 16,
    we dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to App.R. 18(C) and Loc.App.R.
    5(B).
    {¶11} Assuming, arguendo, we had found Appellant’s brief sufficient, upon review
    of the trial court's December 3, 2020 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce, we would not
    have concluded the trial court abused its discretion in its overall distribution of the parties’
    marital assets and debts.
    Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00084         6
    {¶12} Appellant's appeal is dismissed.
    By: Hoffman, J.
    Baldwin, P.J. and
    Wise, Earle, J. concur
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2020 CA 00084

Citation Numbers: 2021 Ohio 2825

Judges: Hoffman

Filed Date: 8/12/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/17/2021