Kochalko v. Kochalko, Unpublished Decision (6-11-2003)
Opinion
{¶ 2} On March 29, 2000, plaintiff-appellee Daniel J. Kochalko [hereinafter appellee] filed a complaint for divorce.1 The matter proceeded and on September 28, 2001, a Magistrate issued a Magistrate's Decision/Divorce Decree. That same day, the trial court approved and adopted the Magistrate's Decision.
{¶ 3} On October 12, 2001, appellant filed timely objections to the Magistrate's Decision, pursuant to Civ.R. 53. The trial court set the objections for a non-oral hearing on October 29, 2001. However, on October 29, 2001, appellant filed a notice of appeal. As a result, on November 2, 2001, the trial court stayed its decision on appellant's objections to the Magistrate's Decision and Decree.
{¶ 4} Civil Rule 53(E)(4)(c) states: "Permanent and interimorders. The court may adopt a magistrate's decision and enter judgment without waiting for timely objections by the parties, but the filing of timely written objections shall operate as an automatic stay of execution of that judgment until the court disposes of those objections and vacates, modifies, or adheres to the judgment previously entered." Therefore, in the case sub judice, the execution of the judgment of divorce was automatically stayed when the objections were filed.
{¶ 5} If an order is not final, appellate courts have no jurisdiction and an appeal must be dismissed. Noble v. Colwell (1989),
{¶ 6} Accordingly, appellant's appeal is dismissed.
By: Edwards, J., Gwin, P.J. and Hoffman, J. concurs.
In Re: Final Appealable Order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kochalko v. Kochalko, Unpublished Decision (6-11-2003) (Kochalko v. Kochalko, Unpublished Decision (6-11-2003)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.