[Cite as Adhikari v. Oli, 2025-Ohio-251.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
NARESH ADHIKARI C.A. No. 31032
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JYOTI OLI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. DR-2022-07-1934
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: January 29, 2025
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Jyoti Oli appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division, that overruled her objections to a magistrate’s decision. For the
following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Naresh Adhikari and Ms. Oli were married in 2017 in Nepal but later moved to the
United States. In 2022, Husband filed a complaint for divorce. The complaint was served on Wife
at her address in Illinois, and she filed an answer. The case was initially scheduled for a trial before
a magistrate on May 18, 2023, and Wife moved to attend the hearing remotely. On May 8, 2023,
the court rescheduled the trial for July 17, 2023. A notice was issued to Wife by email, but Wife
did not appear for the rescheduled trial. On July 23, 2023, she moved for a continuance, which
the magistrate denied. After the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, Wife filed objections,
which she supplemented after the trial transcript was prepared. The trial court found, however, 2
that Wife’s supplemental objections were untimely. It overruled her initial objections but adjusted
the timing of some of the provisions of the decree because of the time that had passed while the
objections were pending. Wife has appealed, assigning as error that she did not receive proper
notice of the proceeding dates.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DELIVER THE HEARING NOTICE FOR THE COURT DATE OF 07/17/23. SECONDLY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PRESENTING THE WRONG ZOOM LINK FOR MAGISTRATE REBECCA DIDONATO HEIMBAUGH FOR THE COURT DATE OF 03/20/23.
{¶3} In her assignment of error, Wife argues that she did not receive notice of the trial
date and that she was not provided correct instructions to attend a pretrial hearing remotely. She
also contends in the argument section of her brief that she submitted her supplemental objections
in a timely manner, but the clerk of courts returned them with instructions for resubmitting them.
According to Wife, she timely resubmitted her supplemental objections, but the clerk of courts
failed to docket them for three weeks after they were delivered, making them appear to have been
filed late.
{¶4} Regarding the pretrial hearing, in November 2022, the trial court issued a
scheduling order that set the trial for May 18, 2023, and a settlement conference for March 20,
2023. The record does not indicate whether a settlement conference occurred on March 20, but on
May 9, 2023, the magistrate issued a new scheduling order that re-set the trial for July 17, 2023,
and scheduled a settlement conference for June 26, 2023. Accordingly, even if Wife was unable
to attend the initial settlement conference because of technology issues, she has not demonstrated
prejudice. 3
{¶5} Regarding notice of the trial date, the record indicates that the court sent notice of
the magistrate’s May 9, 2023, rescheduling order to Wife by email. When Husband filed his
complaint, he provided the court with an email address for Wife. Wife contends that the email
address he provided is incorrect and that she does not have access to such an account. When Wife
filed her answer, however, she provided the court with her correct email address. In her brief,
Wife acknowledges that she received some emails from the court at the correct address. The record
does not indicate which email address the clerk of court used when it sent the magistrate’s
rescheduling order.
{¶6} It is Wife’s burden to demonstrate error by the trial court. In re Estate of House,
2023-Ohio-4348, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.) (“In order to demonstrate reversible error on appeal, an appellant
has the burden to demonstrate error as well as prejudice resulting from that error.”); Mahoney v.
Mahoney, 2017-Ohio-7917, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). Although Wife raised her notice argument in her
objections to the magistrate’s decision, it does not appear that she contacted the clerk of court’s
office to ascertain which email address it used when it sent the rescheduling order. In addition, as
the trial court noted, the Ohio Supreme Court has explained that, once an individual has been made
a party to an action, they have a duty to keep “advised of the progress of the case and of the dates
of the hearing, including the date of the trial . . . .” Lundstrom v. Lundstrom, 2002-Ohio-7127, ¶
22 (11th Dist.), quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Inc. Co. v. Peller, 63 Ohio App.3d 357, 361 (8th
Dist. 1989). Upon review of the record, we conclude that Wife has not established that she did not
receive proper notice of the rescheduled trial date.
{¶7} Regarding Wife’s supplemental objections, Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides
that, if a party submits objections before a transcript is prepared, they may seek leave to file
supplemental objections. The trial court noted that its local rules provide parties 14 days to file 4
supplemental objections after the transcript is filed. Wife, however, did not file her supplemental
objections until 41 days after the transcript was filed.
{¶8} The trial transcript was filed on September 27, 2023. The supplemental objections
Wife filed are time-stamped on November 7, 2023, but contain a letter dated October 8, 2023. The
record also contains separately-filed exhibits to the supplemental objections, which are also time-
stamped on November 7. The exhibits filing contains a letter dated October 25, 2023, which
alleges that Wife’s supplemental objections had been returned to her by the clerk’s office with
“instructions to write cover sheets, remove sticky notes and put those descriptions on cover
sheets.”
{¶9} According to Wife, she initially submitted her supplemental objections on October
10, 2023, which was within the local rule’s 14-day deadline. They were returned to her on October
12, 2023, with instructions about removing sticky notes and providing a signed cover sheet. Wife
asserts that she resubmitted her supplemental objections with those changes, but they were still not
docketed until three weeks after they were delivered.
{¶10} The record does not contain any information that corroborates Wife’s assertions
about when she delivered her supplemental objections to the court. Her claim that she resubmitted
her supplemental objections three weeks before they were docketed is belied by the letter dated
October 25, 2023, which is only 12 days before her supplemental objections and exhibits were
filed. We conclude that Wife has not established that the trial court erred when it refused to
consider her supplemental objections.
{¶11} Upon review of the record, Wife has not demonstrated that she did not receive
proper notice of any of the trial court proceedings or that the clerk of court failed to timely file any
of her submissions. Wife’s assignment of error is overruled. 5
III.
{¶12} Wife’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Adhikari v. Oli, 2025-Ohio-251.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
NARESH ADHIKARI C.A. No. 31032
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JYOTI OLI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. DR-2022-07-1934
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: January 29, 2025
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Jyoti Oli appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division, that overruled her objections to a magistrate’s decision. For the
following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Naresh Adhikari and Ms. Oli were married in 2017 in Nepal but later moved to the
United States. In 2022, Husband filed a complaint for divorce. The complaint was served on Wife
at her address in Illinois, and she filed an answer. The case was initially scheduled for a trial before
a magistrate on May 18, 2023, and Wife moved to attend the hearing remotely. On May 8, 2023,
the court rescheduled the trial for July 17, 2023. A notice was issued to Wife by email, but Wife
did not appear for the rescheduled trial. On July 23, 2023, she moved for a continuance, which
the magistrate denied. After the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, Wife filed objections,
which she supplemented after the trial transcript was prepared. The trial court found, however, 2
that Wife’s supplemental objections were untimely. It overruled her initial objections but adjusted
the timing of some of the provisions of the decree because of the time that had passed while the
objections were pending. Wife has appealed, assigning as error that she did not receive proper
notice of the proceeding dates.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DELIVER THE HEARING NOTICE FOR THE COURT DATE OF 07/17/23. SECONDLY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PRESENTING THE WRONG ZOOM LINK FOR MAGISTRATE REBECCA DIDONATO HEIMBAUGH FOR THE COURT DATE OF 03/20/23.
{¶3} In her assignment of error, Wife argues that she did not receive notice of the trial
date and that she was not provided correct instructions to attend a pretrial hearing remotely. She
also contends in the argument section of her brief that she submitted her supplemental objections
in a timely manner, but the clerk of courts returned them with instructions for resubmitting them.
According to Wife, she timely resubmitted her supplemental objections, but the clerk of courts
failed to docket them for three weeks after they were delivered, making them appear to have been
filed late.
{¶4} Regarding the pretrial hearing, in November 2022, the trial court issued a
scheduling order that set the trial for May 18, 2023, and a settlement conference for March 20,
2023. The record does not indicate whether a settlement conference occurred on March 20, but on
May 9, 2023, the magistrate issued a new scheduling order that re-set the trial for July 17, 2023,
and scheduled a settlement conference for June 26, 2023. Accordingly, even if Wife was unable
to attend the initial settlement conference because of technology issues, she has not demonstrated
prejudice. 3
{¶5} Regarding notice of the trial date, the record indicates that the court sent notice of
the magistrate’s May 9, 2023, rescheduling order to Wife by email. When Husband filed his
complaint, he provided the court with an email address for Wife. Wife contends that the email
address he provided is incorrect and that she does not have access to such an account. When Wife
filed her answer, however, she provided the court with her correct email address. In her brief,
Wife acknowledges that she received some emails from the court at the correct address. The record
does not indicate which email address the clerk of court used when it sent the magistrate’s
rescheduling order.
{¶6} It is Wife’s burden to demonstrate error by the trial court. In re Estate of House,
2023-Ohio-4348, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.) (“In order to demonstrate reversible error on appeal, an appellant
has the burden to demonstrate error as well as prejudice resulting from that error.”); Mahoney v.
Mahoney, 2017-Ohio-7917, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). Although Wife raised her notice argument in her
objections to the magistrate’s decision, it does not appear that she contacted the clerk of court’s
office to ascertain which email address it used when it sent the rescheduling order. In addition, as
the trial court noted, the Ohio Supreme Court has explained that, once an individual has been made
a party to an action, they have a duty to keep “advised of the progress of the case and of the dates
of the hearing, including the date of the trial . . . .” Lundstrom v. Lundstrom, 2002-Ohio-7127, ¶
22 (11th Dist.), quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Inc. Co. v. Peller, 63 Ohio App.3d 357, 361 (8th
Dist. 1989). Upon review of the record, we conclude that Wife has not established that she did not
receive proper notice of the rescheduled trial date.
{¶7} Regarding Wife’s supplemental objections, Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides
that, if a party submits objections before a transcript is prepared, they may seek leave to file
supplemental objections. The trial court noted that its local rules provide parties 14 days to file 4
supplemental objections after the transcript is filed. Wife, however, did not file her supplemental
objections until 41 days after the transcript was filed.
{¶8} The trial transcript was filed on September 27, 2023. The supplemental objections
Wife filed are time-stamped on November 7, 2023, but contain a letter dated October 8, 2023. The
record also contains separately-filed exhibits to the supplemental objections, which are also time-
stamped on November 7. The exhibits filing contains a letter dated October 25, 2023, which
alleges that Wife’s supplemental objections had been returned to her by the clerk’s office with
“instructions to write cover sheets, remove sticky notes and put those descriptions on cover
sheets.”
{¶9} According to Wife, she initially submitted her supplemental objections on October
10, 2023, which was within the local rule’s 14-day deadline. They were returned to her on October
12, 2023, with instructions about removing sticky notes and providing a signed cover sheet. Wife
asserts that she resubmitted her supplemental objections with those changes, but they were still not
docketed until three weeks after they were delivered.
{¶10} The record does not contain any information that corroborates Wife’s assertions
about when she delivered her supplemental objections to the court. Her claim that she resubmitted
her supplemental objections three weeks before they were docketed is belied by the letter dated
October 25, 2023, which is only 12 days before her supplemental objections and exhibits were
filed. We conclude that Wife has not established that the trial court erred when it refused to
consider her supplemental objections.
{¶11} Upon review of the record, Wife has not demonstrated that she did not receive
proper notice of any of the trial court proceedings or that the clerk of court failed to timely file any
of her submissions. Wife’s assignment of error is overruled. 5
III.
{¶12} Wife’s assignment of error is overruled. 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.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT
CARR, P. J. CONCURS. 6
FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCURRING.
{¶13} While I acknowledge that the lead opinion reaches the correct result under the
current state of the law, I write separately to address the inherent problems with that law.
{¶14} As the lead opinion acknowledges, the record does not indicate which email address
the clerk of courts used when it sent the magistrate’s rescheduling order to Wife. The record
simply indicates that the clerk of courts issued an email to Wife on May 9, 2023.
{¶15} In its judgment entry overruling Wife’s objections, the trial court acknowledged
that Wife provided the clerk of courts with her correct email address when Wife filed a New Case
Designation form on November 14, 2022. The trial court overruled Wife’s objection regarding
her lack of notice of the hearing, explaining that the docket indicated: “Notice Issued, Oli Jyoti[.]”
The trial court did not indicate which email address the clerk of courts used when it sent the
magistrate’s rescheduling order to Wife. The trial court then cited case law for the proposition
that, once a party has been properly served and made a party to an action, it is that party’s
responsibility to keep herself apprised of case proceedings and hearing dates.
{¶16} The onus should be on the clerk of courts to demonstrate which email address it
used for service. Otherwise, like here, litigants cannot prove that they did not receive electronic
service. If litigants cannot prove that they did not receive electronic service, then litigants suffer
the consequences with no viable recourse.
{¶17} By comparison, litigants are required to provide proof of service of documents filed
with the court before a court will consider the document. Civ.R. 5(B)(4) (“Documents filed with
the court shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed thereon or separately filed.”).
When utilizing electronic service, some courts require the proof of service to set forth “the
electronic mail address at which the attorney or party was served.” Mid Am. Ventures, Inc. v. 7
Image Concepts, Inc., 2008-Ohio-457, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), quoting Garfield Heights Mun. Court
Loc.R. 7(O). A clerk of courts should likewise be required to set forth the specific email address
it used for service on the docket.
{¶18} Additionally, the case law requiring litigants to keep apprised of case developments
through the online docket is inherently problematic. Dates and times of hearings, trials, and other
proceedings frequently change, often on short notice. Requiring litigants—some of whom are
proceeding pro se and may not have ready access to the Internet—to frequently check the online
docket is untenable. See Summers v. Lancia Nursing Homes, Inc., 2017-Ohio-9218, ¶ 22-23 (7th
Dist.) (acknowledging some of the difficulties with requiring litigants to check the online docket).
That said, I acknowledge that this Court (and others) has stated that “[i]t is well established that
the parties to the case have a duty to keep apprised of the progress of the case on the docket.” In
re Adoption of J.H., 2006-Ohio-5957, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.); Harris v. Rossi, 2018-Ohio-4573, ¶ 50 (11th
Dist.) (collecting cases). I also acknowledge that case law supports the conclusion that litigants
are deemed to have constructive notice of hearing and trial dates when those dates have been
entered on the court’s online docket. Greenhouse v. Anderson, 2021-Ohio-4454, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.)
(collecting cases). While I am troubled by the foregoing case law, I agree with the conclusion in
this case given the current state of the law. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.
APPEARANCES:
JYOTI OLI, pro se, Appellant.
NARESH ADHIKARI, pro se, Appellee.