Hendy v. Wright

[Cite as Hendy v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-5786.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
CARY V. HENDY C.A. No. 26422
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MICHELLE L. WRIGHT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellee CASE No. 2000-05-2076
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 31, 2013
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Cary Hendy (“Father”), appeals from the March 30, 2012
judgment entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
We affirm.
I.
{¶2} This appeal stems from ongoing litigation between Father and Defendant-
Appellee, Michelle Wright (“Mother”), regarding V.R., their minor child. Most recently, Mother
filed a motion to modify child support and to reallocate the tax exemption, as well as a motion
for contempt against Father for allegedly failing to pay uncovered medical expenses. In
response, Father filed motions for sanctions against Mother for allegedly failing to comply with
discovery requests.
{¶3} After a hearing in which both parties appeared and testified, a magistrate of the
trial court: (1) found Father to be voluntarily underemployed, (2) imputed income in the amount
2
of $42,161.00 to Father, which increased his child support payment to $609.08 per month, plus a
2% administrative fee, for a total of $621.26 per month, (3) ordered Mother to maintain health
insurance coverage, (4) ordered the parties to share uncovered medical expenses at a rate of 38%
to be paid by Father, and 62% to be paid by Mother, (5) found Father in contempt for failing to
pay uncovered medical expenses, (6) awarded Mother $500 as a penalty for the contempt,
$2,032.34 in past due uncovered medical expenses, and $928.30 in attorney and process server
fees, and (7) ordered that the parties alternate the tax exemption every other year, so long as
Father is current in his child support payments. Further, the magistrate’s decision contained the
following language:
A PARTY SHALL NOT ASSIGN AS ERROR ON APPEAL THE COURT’S
ADOPTION OF ANY FINDING OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW
IN THAT DECISION UNLESS THE PARTY TIMELY AND
SPECIFICALLY OBJECTS TO THAT FINDING OR CONCLUSION AS
REQUIRED BY CIVIL RULE 53(D)(3)(b)(iv).
(Emphasis sic.)
{¶4} On March 30, 2012, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision. The record
indicates that Father did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision, but instead filed: (1) a
motion for relief from judgment, and (2) an appeal in this Court. We granted a limited remand,
and, on January 18, 2013, the trial court issued a journal entry denying Father’s motion for relief
from judgment. Father did not appeal the denial of that motion.
{¶5} Father’s eight assignments of error from his appeal of the March 30, 2012
decision are now before us for consideration. For purposes of our discussion, we will address
certain assignments of error together.
3
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
MAGISTRATE’S DECISION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MARCH 30[],
2012, IN DISPOSITION OF THE CASE PRESENTED AT HEARING HELD
BEFORE HER ON JULY 13[], 2011 IS, AND WAS, IN STARK CONTRAST
TO DISPOSING OF ALL MATTERS PROMPTLY, EFFICIENTLY, AND
FAIRLY AS CITED IN THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, CANON
3(b)(8) EFFECTIVE DATE [DECEMBER] 20[], 1973, AMENDED
EFFECTIVE MAY 13, 1997. THIS WAS ALSO WELL OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDS PERSONALLY TESTIFIED TO BY THE HEARING MAGISTRATE
OF THE CASE’S DISPOSITION TIMEFRAME.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THIS CASE, TO WHICH JUDGMENT ENTRY WAS ENTERED INTO
RECORD BY THE CLERK OF COURT ON MARCH 30[], 2012, BEING
RENDERED BY THE MAGISTRATE ON MARCH 27[], 2012[,] WAS
DEFICIENT OF OHIO CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, RULE 2.12(b) AND
2.12(b)[2] EFFECTIVE DATE MARCH 1, 2009. SIMILARLY IS DEFICIENT
UNDER PRIOR REVISION OF CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, CANON
3(c)(3), EFFECTIVE MAY 13, 1997. (Underlining omitted.)
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AND FINDINGS TO [FATHER’S] GUILT OF
CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY UNCOVERED MEDICAL EXPENSES
IS A) AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, B) LACKING
IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS, C) PREJUDICED, D) AT DECISION
WRONGLY PENALIZED, EVEN IF MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS WERE
DETERMINED CORRECT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VIII
THE MAGISTRATE WAS BIASED, PREJUDICED, LACKING OF
OBJECTIVITY, IMPARTIALITY, AND FAIRNESS IN DUTIES OF THE
ROLE APPOINTED WHILE OVERSEEING THIS CASE. THIS BEHAVIOR
VIOLATES NUMEROUS RULES UNDER PRIMARY CANONS OF THE
OHIO JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT.
{¶6} In his first, second, fifth, and eighth assignments of error, Father alleges judicial
misconduct by the magistrate and trial judge. Specifically, Father states that the magistrate
violated aspects of the Code of Judicial Conduct by issuing a decision on this matter 258 days
4
after the hearing, and by being biased and prejudiced in her ruling. Additionally, Father states
that the trial judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to properly supervise the
magistrate’s docket in order to ensure the prompt disposition of matters.
{¶7} The alleged issues of judicial misconduct raised by Father are outside of this
Court’s jurisdiction. In State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25827, 2011-Ohio-6067, ¶ 14,
quoting Wilburn v. Wilburn, 169 Ohio App.3d 415, 2006-Ohio-5820, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.), we stated
that “‘any allegations of judicial misconduct are not cognizable on appeal, but [are] a matter
properly within the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Counsel.’” Further, “‘[t]he Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Ohio, or [her] designee, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine a claim
that a common pleas judge is biased or prejudiced.’” Wilburn at ¶ 10, quoting Jones v.
Billingham, 105 Ohio App.3d 8, 11 (2d Dist.1995), citing Section 5(C), Article IV, Ohio
Constitution. “Thus, an appellate court lacks the authority to pass upon the disqualification of a
common pleas judge or to void a judgment of a trial court on that basis.” Wilburn at ¶ 10.
{¶8} Here, Father asserts that the magistrate acted with bias and prejudice in issuing
her decision, and urges this Court to reverse the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s
decision. Father also requests that this Court appoint a different magistrate to hear his case upon
remand. A trial court’s judgment may be reversed for an abuse of discretion where the record
reflects that the court was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable in rendering its decision.
See Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). Father did not object to the
magistrate’s decision on this basis, and thus has forfeited all but plain error. However, he has not
advanced a plain error argument on appeal. See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), App.R. 16(A)(7). In
addition, the record indicates that Father did not file a motion to disqualify the magistrate
pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(6). As such, Father’s only argument for the disqualification of the
5
magistrate, and reversal of the trial court’s decision, rests upon his allegations that violations
occurred under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
{¶9} Therefore, because we lack jurisdiction to decide matters of alleged judicial
misconduct, Father’s first, second, fifth, and eighth assignments of error are stricken from the
record on appeal.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE ADOPTION OF THE MAGISTRATE[’]S FINDING OF FACT AND
DECISION TO JUDGMENT ENTRY WAS GRANTED WITH NEGLECT TO
PROPER JUDICIAL DILIGENCE AND SCRUTINY OF THE
MAGISTRATE’S RENDERING TO ADOPTION BY AUTOMATIC JUDICIAL
SIGNATURE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE METHOD, NUMBERS, AND THEREFORE CALCULATIONS, USED
BY THE MAGISTRATE TO IMPUTE [FATHER’S] INCOME ARE
ENTIRELY WRONG. THIS CAUSES THE ENTIRE CHILD SUPPORT
AMOUNT DETERMINED TO BE INCORRECT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
MAGISTRATE’S IMPUTING INCOME TO [FATHER] WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION. THE DECISION WAS NEGLIGENT TO THE CORRECT
TESTS, EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY AND NUMEROUS OTHER CRITERIA
DEFINED BY [THE OHIO REVISED CODE] AS RELEVANT TO THAT
DETERMINATION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII
MAGISTRATE DID NOT GIVE PROPER CONSIDERATION FAIRLY OR
IMPARTIALLY TO THE CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF AND HOW MUCH
TO IMPUTE. THE CRITERIA WERE NEGLECTED TO HOW THEY
AFFECT THE SITUATION AND USED PUNITIVELY.
{¶10} In Father’s third, fourth, sixth, and seventh assignments of error, he alleges that
the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding
the child support calculation.
6
{¶11} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), “[e]xcept 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
* * * unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b).”
{¶12} “[W]e have long recognized, in civil as well as criminal cases, that failure to
timely advise a trial court of possible error, by objection or otherwise, results in a waiver of the
issue for purposes of appeal.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 (1997), citing
Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427, 436-437, (1996), Buchman v.
Wayne Trace Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 73 Ohio St.3d 260, 271 (1995), and Villella v.
Waikem Motors, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 36, 40 (1989).
{¶13} “Although in criminal cases ‘[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights
may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court,’ [] no analogous
provision exists in the Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Emphasis sic.) Goldfuss at 121, quoting
Crim.R. 52(B). “In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must
proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases
where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of
justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse
effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings.” Id.{¶14} As stated above, Father did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision, and
has therefore forfeited all but plain error. However, Father “has neither argued plain error, nor
has he explained why we should delve into this issue for the first time on appeal.” State v.
Feliciano, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009595, 2010-Ohio-2809, ¶ 16. “While a [litigant] who
forfeits such an argument still may argue plain error on appeal, this [C]ourt will not sua sponte
7
undertake a plain [] error analysis if a [litigant] fails to do so.” State v. Cross, 9th Dist. Summit
No. 25487, 2011-Ohio-3250, ¶ 41, citing State v. Hairston, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 05CA008768,
2006-Ohio-4925, ¶ 11. Therefore, because Father has not argued plain error, we will not create a
plain error argument on his behalf.
{¶15} Accordingly, Father’s third, fourth, sixth, and seventh assignments of error are
overruled.
III.
{¶16} In striking Father’s first, second, fifth, and eighth assignments of error, and
overruling Father’s third, fourth, sixth, and seventh assignments of error, the judgment of the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
8
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, J.
CONCURS.
CARR, J.
CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
APPEARANCES:
CARY V. HENDY, pro se, Appellant.
MICHELLE L. WRIGHT, pro se, Appellee.