T.A. v. M.C. , 2024 Ohio 5123 ( 2024 )

[Cite as T.A. v. M.C., 2024-Ohio-5123.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
T.A. :
:
Appellee : C.A. No. 30138
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CV 02242
:
M.C. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas
: Court)
Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on October 25, 2024
...........
M.C., Pro Se Appellant
T.A., Pro Se Appellee
.............
HUFFMAN, J.
{¶ 1} M.C. appeals from an order granting of a civil stalking protection order
(“CSPO”) in favor of T.A. and against M.C. For the following reasons, the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
-2-
{¶ 2} T.A. filed a petition for a CSPO against M.C. on April 17, 2024. The petition
alleged that M.C. had repeatedly assaulted T.A. and, in one incident, had caused T.A. to
twist her knee. According to T.A., she suffered panic attacks as a result of M.C.’s
behavior. T.A. sought electronic monitoring of M.C. based upon her alleged stalking and
harassing behavior.
{¶ 3} The ex parte petition was granted, and a full hearing before a magistrate was
set for May 2, 2024. The magistrate issued a CSPO on May 6, 2024; the magistrate
found T.A.’s testimony more credible than M.C.’s and also found that T.A. had engaged
in a pattern of conduct such that M.C’s fear of physical harm by T.A. was reasonable.
The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
{¶ 4} On May 9, 2024, M.C. filed a notice of appeal pro se. We issued an order
setting deadlines for briefing in this appeal, which stated, in part: “The parties shall
address in their briefs whether relief can be granted on appeal, as it appears that no
objections were filed to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision.” M.C.
requested an extension of time to file her brief “for evidence,” which we granted the
extension, setting a deadline of July 5, 2024.
{¶ 5} On July 5, 2024, M.C. completed and filed a pro se form document that stated
she was appealing the “civil stalking order judge’s decision” entered on May 2. 2024.
The word “Briefs” was handwritten in the caption of the document. M.C. has not complied
with our May 31 order to address her failure to file objections to the magistrate’s decision.
{¶ 6} R.C. 2903.214 permits a person to seek a protection order against anyone
over the age of 18 who has engaged in menacing by stalking, in violation of R.C.
-3-
2903.211. That offense prohibits “engaging in a pattern of conduct” that knowingly
causes “another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other
person . . . or cause mental distress to the other person . . .” R.C. 2903.211(A).
{¶ 7} Civ.R. 65.1 governs civil protection orders. A trial court “may refer the
proceedings under these special statutory proceedings to a magistrate.” R.C. 65.1(F)(1).
If the matter is referred for a full hearing and determination, “the magistrate shall conduct
the full hearing and, upon conclusion of the hearing, deny or grant a protection order.”
Civ.R. 65(F)(3)(a). “A magistrate's denial or granting of a protection order after a full
hearing shall comply with the statutory requirements relating to such orders and is not
effective unless adopted by the court.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(i). “When a magistrate has
denied or granted a protection order after a full hearing, the court may adopt the
magistrate's denial or granting of the protection order upon review of the order and a
determination that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the order.”
Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii). “A court's adoption . . . of a magistrate's denial or granting of a
protection order after a full hearing shall be effective when signed by the court and filed
with the clerk.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(v).
{¶ 8} “A party may file written objections to a court's adoption, modification, or
rejection of a magistrate's denial or granting of a protection order after a full hearing, or
any terms of such an order, within fourteen days of the court's filing of the order . . .”
Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i). A party objecting “under this division has the burden of showing
that an error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the order, or that the credible
evidence of record is insufficient to support the granting or denial of the protection order,
-4-
or that the magistrate abused the magistrate's discretion in including or failing to include
specific terms in the protection order.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iii).
{¶ 9} } Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv) states:
Objections based upon evidence of record shall be supported by a transcript
of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate or an affidavit of that
evidence if a transcript is not available. . . . The objecting party shall file the
transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing objections
unless the court extends the time in writing for preparation of the transcript
or other good cause. . .
{¶ 10} Most significantly, Civ.R. 65.1(G) states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule, an order entered by the
court under division (F)(3)(c) . . . of this rule is a final, appealable order.
However, a party must timely file objections to such an order under division
(F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal, and the timely filing of such
objections shall stay the running of the time for appeal until the filing of the
court's ruling on the objections.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 11} Civ.R. 65.1 was amended in 2016 “to preclude challenges to civil protection
orders when an appellant fails to object to a trial court decision.” Curry v. Bettison, 2023-
Ohio-1911, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.). Here, the record reflects that M.C. did not file objections to
the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision granting her petition for a CSPO
-5-
before filing her appeal.
{¶ 12} Curry further discussed whether a plain error analysis applied in these
cases, noting that “Civ.R. 65.1, unlike Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), does not provide for plain
error review where a party fails to object to a decision in the trial court.” Id. at ¶ 2. Curry
clarified and summarized the analysis that should occur in Civ.R. 65.1 appeals, stating:
(1) where litigants fail to comply with Civ.R. 65.1(G)’s requirement of filing
of objections, they cannot challenge the trial court's decision on appeal, and
the decision must be affirmed; (2) no issues that are raised, whether they
are phrased as error or plain error, can be considered; (3) this court should
not engage in any analysis that directly or indirectly involves the merits of
the trial court order; (4) where a litigant has objected in the trial court as
specified by Civ.R. 65.1, this court retains the ability to consider error that
is raised on appeal, including plain error, if the latter type of error is raised
by a party . . . ; and (5) when a party fails to file objections, the court of
appeals cannot consider or cite the content of the transcript.
(Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 67.
{¶ 13} Because M.C. did not file objections in the trial court before filing her appeal,
we are precluded from considering her arguments. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
.............
EPLEY, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
-6-