[Cite as Catlin v. Catlin, 2026-Ohio-1120.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONICA R. CATLIN, Case No. CT2025-0071
Petitioner-Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, BRYAN L. CATLIN, Case No. DH2025-0303
Respondent-Appellant Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: March 30, 2026
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Robert G. Montgomery; David M. Gormley, Judges
APPEARANCES: NO APPEARANCE, for Petitioner-Appellee; KRISTOPHER K. HILL, for Respondent-Appellant.
Montgomery, J.
{¶1} Respondent-Appellant, Bryan L. Catlin (“Appellant”) appeals the trial
court’s decision that denied his motion to vacate the trial court’s civil protection order
issued against him. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} Petitioner-Appellee, Monica R. Catlin (“Appellee”), filed a Petition for
Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (R.C. 3113.31) against Appellant in the
Domestic Relations Division of the Common Pleas Court in Muskingum County, on
June 2, 2025. {¶3} An ex parte civil protection order was granted in favor of Appellee by the
trial court on the same day. Appellant was personally served with the ex parte order that
gave notice that a full hearing on the petition would be held on June 9, 2025, at 10:00
A.M. at the Muskingum County Domestic Relations Court.
{¶4} While the petition was pending, Attorney Kristopher K. Hill, Esq. filed a
Notice of Appearance as attorney of record for Appellant on June 6, 2025.
{¶5} A hearing on Appellee’s petition was held on June 9, 2025. Neither
Appellant nor Attorney Hill appeared at the hearing. On the same day and prior to the
trial court issuing a decision on Appellee’s petition, Attorney Hill filed a Motion to Vacate,
or in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings.
{¶6} Appellant’s motion stated that he and his counsel failed to appear at the
hearing because of lack of notice of the hearing to counsel and failure to arrange for
Appellant’s transportation from the jail to the hearing.
{¶7} The trial court denied Appellant’s motion through its Judgment Entry filed
in the trial court on July 7, 2025, and an Order of Protection was issued.
{¶8} Appellant filed a timely appeal to the trial court’s Judgment Entry and
asserts the following assignment of error:
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THE FULL HEARING
ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDER
WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE APPELLANT AND WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT
A MISTAKE IN SCHEDULING HAD OCCURRED.”
{¶10} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT WHAT HAD
HAPPENED WAS NOT AN EXCUSABLE MISTAKE OR NEGLECT UNDER CIV. R.
60(B).” STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶11} An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's decision concerning a
Civ.R. 60(B) motion unless the court abused its discretion. State v. AAA Sly Bail Bonds
(Jefferson), 2018-Ohio-2943, ¶ 53 (5th Dist.), citing Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d
101, ¶ 7 (2006). An abuse of discretion is more than an error in law or judgment and
implies that the court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
ANALYSIS
{¶12} Appellant appeals the trial court’s decision that denied his motion to vacate
the civil protection order issued against him. Appellant asserts that there was a mistake
in the scheduling of his hearing and he is therefore entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B).
(1) Civ.R. 60(B) states in part, “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the
court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or
proceeding for the following reasons: mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
neglect; . . . .”
{¶13} In order to prevail on a motion brought pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), "the
movant must demonstrate that (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present
if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in
Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and,
where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the
judgment, order or proceedings was entered or taken." Argo Plastic Products Co. v.
Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389, 391 (1984), citing GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC
Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. If any prong of this
requirement is not satisfied, relief shall be denied. Argo, at 391. {¶14} Appellant argued in his motion to the trial court that after the ex parte order
was served upon him, an individual at the Clerk’s office misinformed a member of his
counsel’s staff that the full hearing on Appellee’s petition had not been scheduled and that
this created a mistake in scheduling.
{¶15} The trial court found, “[w]hile the Court has no reason to disbelieve the
assertion that counsel’s office was informed by an unidentified individual at the Clerk’s
office that no hearing date had been set, this assertion has no bearing on the consideration
to be given to the request for relief. Respondent was personally served notice of the full
hearing date.” Judgment Entry, p. 2.
{¶16} Service on a civil petition for domestic violence is governed by Civ.R.
65.1(C)(2) which states, “Initial service, and service of any ex parte protection order that
is entered, shall be made in accordance with the provisions for personal service of process
within the state under Civ.R. 4.1(B) . . . .”
{¶17} In the case at hand, Appellant was personally served on June 2, 2025, with
the ex parte order and notice of hearing by a deputy from Muskingum County. The order
clearly stated that the hearing would be held at 10:00 A.M. on June 9, 2025. Domestic
Violence Civil Protection Order (“DVCPO”) Ex Parte (R.C. 3113.31), p. 6. The trial court
conducted the hearing at 10:15 A.M. on June 9, 2025. Transcript of Hearing, p. 1.
{¶18} Upon review of the record, this Court finds there was no mistake in the
scheduling of the full hearing on Appellee’s petition for domestic violence.
{¶19} Appellant also argues in his brief that the trial court made a mistake when
it conducted the full hearing on Appellee’s petition for domestic violence in his absence.
{¶20} Appellant was incarcerated at the time of the full hearing on Appellee’s
petition. The trial court found, “No request was made by the respondent to be transported to the hearing; further, respondent has no automatic right to be transported from a place
of incarceration to personally appear at a full hearing on a DVCPO as it is a civil hearing.”
Judgment Entry, p. 2.
{¶21} This Court finds that the trial court’s decision was not arbitrary,
unreasonable or unconscionable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Appellant’s Motion to Vacate, or in the alternative, Stay Proceedings.
{¶22} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶23} Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred
by holding that what had happened was not an excusable mistake or neglect under Civ. R.
60(B).
{¶24} Appellant has failed to support this argument in his brief.
{¶25} Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(7), an appellant’s brief shall set forth, "An
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Catlin v. Catlin, 2026-Ohio-1120.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONICA R. CATLIN, Case No. CT2025-0071
Petitioner-Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, BRYAN L. CATLIN, Case No. DH2025-0303
Respondent-Appellant Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: March 30, 2026
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Robert G. Montgomery; David M. Gormley, Judges
APPEARANCES: NO APPEARANCE, for Petitioner-Appellee; KRISTOPHER K. HILL, for Respondent-Appellant.
Montgomery, J.
{¶1} Respondent-Appellant, Bryan L. Catlin (“Appellant”) appeals the trial
court’s decision that denied his motion to vacate the trial court’s civil protection order
issued against him. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} Petitioner-Appellee, Monica R. Catlin (“Appellee”), filed a Petition for
Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (R.C. 3113.31) against Appellant in the
Domestic Relations Division of the Common Pleas Court in Muskingum County, on
June 2, 2025. {¶3} An ex parte civil protection order was granted in favor of Appellee by the
trial court on the same day. Appellant was personally served with the ex parte order that
gave notice that a full hearing on the petition would be held on June 9, 2025, at 10:00
A.M. at the Muskingum County Domestic Relations Court.
{¶4} While the petition was pending, Attorney Kristopher K. Hill, Esq. filed a
Notice of Appearance as attorney of record for Appellant on June 6, 2025.
{¶5} A hearing on Appellee’s petition was held on June 9, 2025. Neither
Appellant nor Attorney Hill appeared at the hearing. On the same day and prior to the
trial court issuing a decision on Appellee’s petition, Attorney Hill filed a Motion to Vacate,
or in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings.
{¶6} Appellant’s motion stated that he and his counsel failed to appear at the
hearing because of lack of notice of the hearing to counsel and failure to arrange for
Appellant’s transportation from the jail to the hearing.
{¶7} The trial court denied Appellant’s motion through its Judgment Entry filed
in the trial court on July 7, 2025, and an Order of Protection was issued.
{¶8} Appellant filed a timely appeal to the trial court’s Judgment Entry and
asserts the following assignment of error:
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THE FULL HEARING
ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDER
WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE APPELLANT AND WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT
A MISTAKE IN SCHEDULING HAD OCCURRED.”
{¶10} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT WHAT HAD
HAPPENED WAS NOT AN EXCUSABLE MISTAKE OR NEGLECT UNDER CIV. R.
60(B).” STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶11} An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's decision concerning a
Civ.R. 60(B) motion unless the court abused its discretion. State v. AAA Sly Bail Bonds
(Jefferson), 2018-Ohio-2943, ¶ 53 (5th Dist.), citing Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d
101, ¶ 7 (2006). An abuse of discretion is more than an error in law or judgment and
implies that the court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
ANALYSIS
{¶12} Appellant appeals the trial court’s decision that denied his motion to vacate
the civil protection order issued against him. Appellant asserts that there was a mistake
in the scheduling of his hearing and he is therefore entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B).
(1) Civ.R. 60(B) states in part, “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the
court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or
proceeding for the following reasons: mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
neglect; . . . .”
{¶13} In order to prevail on a motion brought pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), "the
movant must demonstrate that (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present
if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in
Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and,
where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the
judgment, order or proceedings was entered or taken." Argo Plastic Products Co. v.
Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389, 391 (1984), citing GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC
Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. If any prong of this
requirement is not satisfied, relief shall be denied. Argo, at 391. {¶14} Appellant argued in his motion to the trial court that after the ex parte order
was served upon him, an individual at the Clerk’s office misinformed a member of his
counsel’s staff that the full hearing on Appellee’s petition had not been scheduled and that
this created a mistake in scheduling.
{¶15} The trial court found, “[w]hile the Court has no reason to disbelieve the
assertion that counsel’s office was informed by an unidentified individual at the Clerk’s
office that no hearing date had been set, this assertion has no bearing on the consideration
to be given to the request for relief. Respondent was personally served notice of the full
hearing date.” Judgment Entry, p. 2.
{¶16} Service on a civil petition for domestic violence is governed by Civ.R.
65.1(C)(2) which states, “Initial service, and service of any ex parte protection order that
is entered, shall be made in accordance with the provisions for personal service of process
within the state under Civ.R. 4.1(B) . . . .”
{¶17} In the case at hand, Appellant was personally served on June 2, 2025, with
the ex parte order and notice of hearing by a deputy from Muskingum County. The order
clearly stated that the hearing would be held at 10:00 A.M. on June 9, 2025. Domestic
Violence Civil Protection Order (“DVCPO”) Ex Parte (R.C. 3113.31), p. 6. The trial court
conducted the hearing at 10:15 A.M. on June 9, 2025. Transcript of Hearing, p. 1.
{¶18} Upon review of the record, this Court finds there was no mistake in the
scheduling of the full hearing on Appellee’s petition for domestic violence.
{¶19} Appellant also argues in his brief that the trial court made a mistake when
it conducted the full hearing on Appellee’s petition for domestic violence in his absence.
{¶20} Appellant was incarcerated at the time of the full hearing on Appellee’s
petition. The trial court found, “No request was made by the respondent to be transported to the hearing; further, respondent has no automatic right to be transported from a place
of incarceration to personally appear at a full hearing on a DVCPO as it is a civil hearing.”
Judgment Entry, p. 2.
{¶21} This Court finds that the trial court’s decision was not arbitrary,
unreasonable or unconscionable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Appellant’s Motion to Vacate, or in the alternative, Stay Proceedings.
{¶22} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶23} Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred
by holding that what had happened was not an excusable mistake or neglect under Civ. R.
60(B).
{¶24} Appellant has failed to support this argument in his brief.
{¶25} Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(7), an appellant’s brief shall set forth, "An
argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment
of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with
citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies. The
argument may be preceded by a summary.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶26} This Court has held, “An appellate court may rely upon App.R. 12(A) in
overruling or disregarding an assignment of error because of ‘the lack of briefing’ on
the assignment of error.” Henry v. Gastaldo, 2005-Ohio-4109, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.)., citing
Hawley v. Ritley, 35 Ohio St.3d 157, 159 (1988).
{¶27} Appellant has failed to set forth an argument with respect to his second
assignment of error as required by the appellate rules. Therefore, Appellant’s second
assignment of error is overruled. CONCLUSION
{¶28} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is Affirmed.
{¶29} Costs to Appellant.
By: Montgomery, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Gormley, J. concur.