W.E. v. C.E. , 2019 Ohio 4818 ( 2019 )

[Cite as W.E. v. C.E., 2019-Ohio-4818.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SCIOTO COUNTY
W.E., : Case No. 19CA3884
Petitioner-Appellant, :
v. : DECISION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
C.E., :
Respondent-Appellee. : RELEASED 11/18/2019
______________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
W.E., Youngstown, Ohio, pro se.
C.E., Portsmouth, Ohio, pro se.
______________________________________________________________________
Hess, J.
{¶1} W.E. appeals from a judgment of the Scioto County Court of Common
Pleas denying his R.C. 2903.214 petition for a civil stalking protection order. W.E.
asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition. R.C.
2903.214(A)(1) and (B) grant the common pleas court of the county in which the person
to be protected by the protection order resides jurisdiction over all proceedings under
the statute. W.E. resided in Mahoning County when he sought the protection order in
Scioto County. Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this matter, the judgment
entry denying the petition is void, and we vacate it. This decision renders moot W.E.’s
contention that the trial court violated his due process rights by not allowing him to
participate in the hearing on the petition.
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 2
I. FACTS
{¶2} On May 10, 2019, W.E. filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order
against C.E. pursuant to R.C. 2903.214. On the petition, W.E. listed his address as the
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio. The trial court conducted a
hearing at which C.E. was present but W.E. was not. On June 20, 2019, the trial court
issued a judgment entry stating:
This matter came before the Court for hearing on a Petition for a
Civil Stalking Protection Order filed May 10, 2019. The Court finds the
Petitioner [W.E.] is currently incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center. The Respondent [C.E.] was present for the hearing.
From the evidence, this Court finds that [C.E.] was notified of [W.E.’s]
parole hearing and status by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. [C.E.]
explained she talked with the representatives of the Parole Authority and
at their suggestion [C.E.] asked for a cease and desist order. This Court
finds [C.E.’s] discussions with the representatives of the Ohio Adult Parole
Authority were in an official proceeding. This Court further finds the
Petitioner has sent correspondence to other people with threatening
comments to [C.E.].
This Court finds the Petition for Civil Stalking Protection Order is
not well-taken and is overruled.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶3} W.E. assigns the following errors for our review:
ERROR ONE: TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROCEEDING TO
JUDGMENT AS IT HAD “NO JURISDICTION”, AND THE JUDGMENT
MUST BE VACATED AND HELD FOR NAUGHT.
ERROR TWO: TRIAL COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS IN FAILING
TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO PARTAKE IN THE HEARING IN ANY
FASHION, AND IN ACCEPTING EX PARTE EVIDENCE BY
RESPONDENT WITHOUT PETITIONER BEING ABLE TO REFUTE IT,
AMOUNTING TO A VOID JUDGMENT.
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 3
III. JURISDICTION
{¶4} In the first assignment of error, W.E. asserts that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to consider his petition because he resides in Mahoning County, not Scioto
County. C.E. asserts that she “does not know how to respond to a stalking allegation
against her in Scioto County, Ohio, when W.E. has not been in Scioto County since he
was incarcerated over a decade ago.”
{¶5} “ ‘ “The existence of the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is a
question of law that we review de novo.” ’ ” Martindale v. Martindale, 4th Dist. Athens
No. 14CA30, 2016-Ohio-524, ¶ 27, quoting Barber v. Williamson, 4th Dist. Ross No.
11CA3265, 2012-Ohio-4925, ¶ 12, quoting Yazdani-Isfehani v. Yazdani-Isfehani, 170
Ohio App.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-7105, 865 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.).
{¶6} R.C. 2903.214 governs protection orders for victims of menacing by
stalking. R.C. 2903.214(B) states: “The court has jurisdiction over all proceedings
under this section.” R.C. 2903.214(A)(1) defines “court” to mean “the court of common
pleas of the county in which the person to be protected by the protection order resides.”
“When a petitioner seeks a civil protection order from a common pleas court in a county
in which he does not reside, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.”
Vilk v. Dinardo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103755, 2016-Ohio-5245, ¶ 12 (Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction over R.C. 2903.214 proceeding
because petitioner resided in Geauga County). See also Reynolds v. Whitney, 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-1048, 2004-Ohio-1628, ¶ 1, 4-8 (Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction over R.C. 2903.214 proceeding because petitioner
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 4
resided in Fairfield County). “A judgment rendered by a court lacking subject-matter
jurisdiction is void.” In re A.B., 4th Dist. Athens No. 18CA13, 2019-Ohio-90, ¶ 8.
{¶7} The record reflects that when W.E. sought the protection order in Scioto
County, he resided in Youngstown, Ohio. We take judicial notice of the fact that
Youngstown is located in Mahoning County. See Vilk v. Bridge, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
103753, 2016-Ohio-4706, ¶ 1 (taking judicial notice that address on petition for civil
protection order was located in a particular county). As a result, the Scioto County
Court of Common Pleas was not “the court of common pleas of the county in which the
person to be protected by the protection order resides.” R.C. 2903.214(A)(1). The trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition, and the judgment denying the
petition is void. We sustain the first assignment of error and vacate the June 20, 2019
judgment entry denying the petition. This decision renders moot the second assignment
of error, so we do not consider it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
JUDGMENT VACATED.
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 5
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS VACATED and that Appellant shall pay the
costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Scioto
County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of
this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Smith, P.J. & McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY: ________________________________
Michael D. Hess, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment
entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing
with the clerk.