[Cite as Canton Asphalt Co. v. Fosnaught, 2011-Ohio-1329.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CANTON ASPHALT COMPANY JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and DANIEL J. FOSNAUGHT 2010 CA 00202
Def.-Appellee/Cross-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2009 CV 00644
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 21, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee For Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
JOHN J. RAMBACHER LEE E. PLAKAS STEPHEN P. GRIFFIN AMANDA M. PAAR WINKHART & RAMBACHER TZANGAS, PLAKAS, MANNOS & RAIES 825 South Main Street 220 Market Avenue South, 8th Floor North Canton, Ohio 44720 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Canton Asphalt Company and Cross-Appellant Daniel J.
Fosnaught appeals from the June 2, 2010, Judgment Entries entered in the Stark
County Court of Common Pleas determining the rights of the parties as they pertain to a
driveway.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows:
{¶3} On February 17, 2009, Appellant Canton Asphalt Company filed a
Complaint against Appellee Daniel J. Fosnaught asserting claims of trespass, quiet title,
enforcement of an April 5, 2007, Agreement, and quiet title/adverse possession.
{¶4} On April 10, 2009, Appellee Fosnaught filed an Answer and Counter-
Claim. Appellee’s counterclaim asserted claims of adverse possession, easement by
prescription, easement by implication/necessity, quiet title and declaratory judgment.
{¶5} On February 1, 2010, this matter proceeded to trial before a Magistrate.
{¶6} On May 11, 2010, the Magistrate issued a Magistrate’s Decision wherein
the Magistrate found that Appellee Fosnaught did not have an easement by prescription
over the driveway; that Appellant Canton Asphalt’s claims to quiet title were without
merit and that the 2007 Agreement between the parties was enforceable and that such
terms control.
{¶7} On May 24, 2010, Appellant filed a Motion to Recover Legal Fees/Cost
from Appellee.
{¶8} On May 25, 2010, Appellee filed Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision.
{¶9} On June 3, 2010, Appellant filed Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision. Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 3
{¶10} By Judgment Entry filed July 2, 2010, the trial court denied Canton
Asphalt’s motion for legal fees and court costs.
{¶11} By separate Judgment Entry filed July 2, 2010, the trial court denied
Fosnaught’s objections and found Canton Asphalt’s Objections to be untimely.
{¶12} On July 14, 2010, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The trial
court has not ruled on this motion.
{¶13} It is from the trial court’s July 2, 2010, decision that Appellant and
Appellee now appeal, raising the following assignments of error for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
APPEAL
{¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING WITHIN THE TRIAL
COURT’S JUNE 2, 2010 JUDGMENT ENTRY THAT APPELLANT’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION WERE NOT TIMELY FILED UNDER CIVIL RULE
53(D)(3)(b)(i) AND IN NOT REVIEWING AND ACTING/RULING UPON APPELLANT’S
OBJECTIONS AS REQUIRED UNDER CIVIL RULE 53(D)(4)(d).
{¶15} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION
FOR RECOVERY OF LEGAL FEES/COURT COSTS WITHIN THE TRIAL COURT’S
JUNE 2, 2010 JUDGMENT ENTRY WHERE BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT (WHICH
AGREEMENT THE TRIAL COURT RULED TO BE ENFORCEABLE) APPELLANT
AND APPELLEE CONTRACTED THAT THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL RECOVER
LEGAL FEES AND COSTS FROM THE NON-PREVAILING PARTY AS TO CERTAIN
CLAIMS (AS SPECIFIED THEREIN) UPON WHICH SUCH CLAIMS APPELLANT
PREVAILED. Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 4
{¶16} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT APPELLANT’S QUIET
TITLE/ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIM AGAINST APPELLEE CONSTITUTED A
COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON A JUDGMENT AND IN NOT OTHERWISE
ADJUDICATING SUCH CLAIM ON THE SUBSTANTIVE MERITS THEREOF.”
CROSS-APPEAL
{¶17} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT
FOSNAUGHT HAS A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY.
{¶18} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT
FOSNAUGHT HAS AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY OVER THE DRIVEWAY.
{¶19} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CANTON ASPHALT AND FOSNAUGHT ENFORCEABLE WHEN IT IS
VOIDABLE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE OF FACT.”
I.
{¶20} In Appellant’s first assignment of error, Appellant contends that the trial
court erred in finding that Appellant’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision were not
timely filed. We agree.
{¶21} Civil Rule governs the role of magistrates. It provides in pertinent part:
{¶22} “(D) Proceedings in Matters Referred to Magistrates.
{¶23} ***
{¶24} “(3) Magistrate's decision; objections to magistrate's decision.
{¶25} ***
{¶26} “(b) Objections to magistrate's decision. Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 5
{¶27} “(i) Time for filing. A party may file written objections to a magistrate's
decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has
adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections
not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. If a party makes a timely
request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the time for filing objections begins to
run when the magistrate files a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of
law.”
{¶28} In the case sub judice, Appellee timely filed his Objections on May 25,
2010, fourteen days after the May 11, 2010, Magistrate’s Decision. Pursuant to the
above rule, Appellant therefore had ten days from the date of the filing of Appellee’s
Objections to file his Objections. The ten day period would run on June 4, 2010. As
Appellant filed his Objections on June 3, 2010, we find that such Objections were timely
filed. As such, we find that the trial court erred in failing to consider the Objections,
finding that Appellant’s Objections were not timely filed.
{¶29} Accordingly, we therefore remand this matter back to the trial court to
review Appellant’s Objections and to rule upon same as provided in Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
{¶30} Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶31} Based on our disposition of Appellant’s first Assignment of Error and our
remand to the trial court with instructions to consider and rule upon Appellant’s Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 6
objections to the Magistrate’s Decision, we find that both Appellant and Cross-
Appellant’s remaining assignments are not ripe for review at this time.
{¶32} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Stark County, Ohio, is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the law and this opinion.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES JWW/d 0310 Stark County, Case Nos.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Canton Asphalt Co. v. Fosnaught, 2011-Ohio-1329.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CANTON ASPHALT COMPANY JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and DANIEL J. FOSNAUGHT 2010 CA 00202
Def.-Appellee/Cross-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2009 CV 00644
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 21, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee For Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
JOHN J. RAMBACHER LEE E. PLAKAS STEPHEN P. GRIFFIN AMANDA M. PAAR WINKHART & RAMBACHER TZANGAS, PLAKAS, MANNOS & RAIES 825 South Main Street 220 Market Avenue South, 8th Floor North Canton, Ohio 44720 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Canton Asphalt Company and Cross-Appellant Daniel J.
Fosnaught appeals from the June 2, 2010, Judgment Entries entered in the Stark
County Court of Common Pleas determining the rights of the parties as they pertain to a
driveway.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows:
{¶3} On February 17, 2009, Appellant Canton Asphalt Company filed a
Complaint against Appellee Daniel J. Fosnaught asserting claims of trespass, quiet title,
enforcement of an April 5, 2007, Agreement, and quiet title/adverse possession.
{¶4} On April 10, 2009, Appellee Fosnaught filed an Answer and Counter-
Claim. Appellee’s counterclaim asserted claims of adverse possession, easement by
prescription, easement by implication/necessity, quiet title and declaratory judgment.
{¶5} On February 1, 2010, this matter proceeded to trial before a Magistrate.
{¶6} On May 11, 2010, the Magistrate issued a Magistrate’s Decision wherein
the Magistrate found that Appellee Fosnaught did not have an easement by prescription
over the driveway; that Appellant Canton Asphalt’s claims to quiet title were without
merit and that the 2007 Agreement between the parties was enforceable and that such
terms control.
{¶7} On May 24, 2010, Appellant filed a Motion to Recover Legal Fees/Cost
from Appellee.
{¶8} On May 25, 2010, Appellee filed Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision.
{¶9} On June 3, 2010, Appellant filed Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision. Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 3
{¶10} By Judgment Entry filed July 2, 2010, the trial court denied Canton
Asphalt’s motion for legal fees and court costs.
{¶11} By separate Judgment Entry filed July 2, 2010, the trial court denied
Fosnaught’s objections and found Canton Asphalt’s Objections to be untimely.
{¶12} On July 14, 2010, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The trial
court has not ruled on this motion.
{¶13} It is from the trial court’s July 2, 2010, decision that Appellant and
Appellee now appeal, raising the following assignments of error for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
APPEAL
{¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING WITHIN THE TRIAL
COURT’S JUNE 2, 2010 JUDGMENT ENTRY THAT APPELLANT’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION WERE NOT TIMELY FILED UNDER CIVIL RULE
53(D)(3)(b)(i) AND IN NOT REVIEWING AND ACTING/RULING UPON APPELLANT’S
OBJECTIONS AS REQUIRED UNDER CIVIL RULE 53(D)(4)(d).
{¶15} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION
FOR RECOVERY OF LEGAL FEES/COURT COSTS WITHIN THE TRIAL COURT’S
JUNE 2, 2010 JUDGMENT ENTRY WHERE BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT (WHICH
AGREEMENT THE TRIAL COURT RULED TO BE ENFORCEABLE) APPELLANT
AND APPELLEE CONTRACTED THAT THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL RECOVER
LEGAL FEES AND COSTS FROM THE NON-PREVAILING PARTY AS TO CERTAIN
CLAIMS (AS SPECIFIED THEREIN) UPON WHICH SUCH CLAIMS APPELLANT
PREVAILED. Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 4
{¶16} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT APPELLANT’S QUIET
TITLE/ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIM AGAINST APPELLEE CONSTITUTED A
COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON A JUDGMENT AND IN NOT OTHERWISE
ADJUDICATING SUCH CLAIM ON THE SUBSTANTIVE MERITS THEREOF.”
CROSS-APPEAL
{¶17} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT
FOSNAUGHT HAS A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY.
{¶18} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT
FOSNAUGHT HAS AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY OVER THE DRIVEWAY.
{¶19} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CANTON ASPHALT AND FOSNAUGHT ENFORCEABLE WHEN IT IS
VOIDABLE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE OF FACT.”
I.
{¶20} In Appellant’s first assignment of error, Appellant contends that the trial
court erred in finding that Appellant’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision were not
timely filed. We agree.
{¶21} Civil Rule governs the role of magistrates. It provides in pertinent part:
{¶22} “(D) Proceedings in Matters Referred to Magistrates.
{¶23} ***
{¶24} “(3) Magistrate's decision; objections to magistrate's decision.
{¶25} ***
{¶26} “(b) Objections to magistrate's decision. Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 5
{¶27} “(i) Time for filing. A party may file written objections to a magistrate's
decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has
adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections
not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. If a party makes a timely
request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the time for filing objections begins to
run when the magistrate files a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of
law.”
{¶28} In the case sub judice, Appellee timely filed his Objections on May 25,
2010, fourteen days after the May 11, 2010, Magistrate’s Decision. Pursuant to the
above rule, Appellant therefore had ten days from the date of the filing of Appellee’s
Objections to file his Objections. The ten day period would run on June 4, 2010. As
Appellant filed his Objections on June 3, 2010, we find that such Objections were timely
filed. As such, we find that the trial court erred in failing to consider the Objections,
finding that Appellant’s Objections were not timely filed.
{¶29} Accordingly, we therefore remand this matter back to the trial court to
review Appellant’s Objections and to rule upon same as provided in Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
{¶30} Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶31} Based on our disposition of Appellant’s first Assignment of Error and our
remand to the trial court with instructions to consider and rule upon Appellant’s Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 6
objections to the Magistrate’s Decision, we find that both Appellant and Cross-
Appellant’s remaining assignments are not ripe for review at this time.
{¶32} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Stark County, Ohio, is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the law and this opinion.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES JWW/d 0310 Stark County, Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and 2010 CA 00202 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CANTON ASPHALT COMPANY : : Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : DANIEL J. FOSNAUGHT : : Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant : Case Nos. 2010 CA 00201 and : 2010 CA 00202
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is reversed and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Costs to be split equally between Appellant and Appellee.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES