Ndiathe v. Ndiath

2025 Ohio 4828

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: C-250038
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Ndiathe v. Ndiath, 2025-Ohio-4828.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

COURO NDIATHE, : APPEAL NO. C-250038 TRIAL NO. DR-2400570 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY RACINE NDIATH, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 10/22/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Ndiathe v. Ndiath, 2025-Ohio-4828.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

COURO NDIATHE, : APPEAL NO. C-250038 TRIAL NO. DR-2400570 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION RACINE NDIATH, :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 22, 2025

Strauss Troy Co., LPA, and Courtney L. Suhre, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Racine Ndiath, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} In this pro se appeal, defendant-appellant Racine Ndiath (“husband”)

appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division, holding him in contempt for repeatedly violating the trial court’s

order for plaintiff-appellee Couro Ndiathe (“wife”) to have exclusive occupancy of the

marital residence. In five “issues presented” for review, husband challenges the

sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the trial court’s decision and asserts

that the trial court demonstrated bias and misapplied the law under R.C. 2705.02.

However, husband failed to cause the proper transcript to be included in the record

under App.R. 9. Therefore, this court must presume the regularity of the proceedings.

Further, there is no indication on the face of the decision that the trial court misapplied

the law under R.C. 2705.02. Consequently, we overrule husband’s “issues presented”

for review and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Background

{¶2} On April 2, 2024, wife filed a complaint for divorce from husband. That

same day, wife filed a motion for exclusive occupancy of the marital residence. After

a hearing on August 8, 2024, the trial court entered an order granting the motion on

August 14, 2024, and ordering that wife was entitled to exclusive occupancy of the

marital residence, effective at 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2024. The trial court further

ordered that husband shall not cause the destruction of any property in the residence

prior to or upon vacating the residence or allow any third party to enter the residence

on his behalf and shall provide all keys and/or garage-door openers to the residence

to wife upon vacating the residence. On August 23, 2024, husband filed objections to

the magistrate’s decision, claiming he was not a threat to wife. However, husband filed

a “dismissal” of the objections on September 20, 2024, prior to the scheduled hearing

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

on the objections. Therefore, the trial court entered an order dismissing the objections

on October 3, 2024.

{¶3} On September 27, 2024, wife filed a motion for contempt and a motion

to compel return of a spare car key. The motion claimed that husband entered the

residence “on several occasions” after the trial court granted wife exclusive occupancy

of the residence, refused to return his keys to the marital residence in contravention

of the trial court’s order, and removed wife’s spare car key from the marital residence

after the trial court granted wife exclusive occupancy.

{¶4} On November 26, 2024, wife filed a “supplemental” motion for

contempt. The motion claimed that husband continued to refuse to remain away from

the marital residence. The motion stated,

Husband appears at the home, under the guise of picking the

children up for his parenting time, only to sneak into the home to

destroy property and steal wife’s belongings. Once he has inflicted

damage to the home and takes whatever property he chooses, Husband

leaves without the children and does not exercise his parenting time per

the 75N order. Wife has changed the locks on the home and still

Husband continues to sneak in. Husband has stolen tools, clothes,

trashcans, Wife’s printer and printer paper, and Wife’s [i]Phone.

Husband has broken the washing machine on three separate occasions,

forcing wife to pay to have [it] fixed. Most recently, Husband appeared

at the home on October 30, 2024. The police intervened after an

altercation took place and still, Husband threatens to come into the

home whenever he pleases.

{¶5} After a contempt hearing on December 3, 2024, and another hearing on

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

January 21, 2025, the trial court entered an order on January 21, 2025, finding

husband in contempt for his “repeated violation” of the exclusive occupancy order, and

ordering husband to pay wife $250 within 30 days of the judgment entry.1 The trial

court further ordered that husband shall not enter or appear at the residence and

should expect jail time if he does. The trial court also ordered that husband pay

$257.50 to reimburse wife for her expenses in replacing her spare car key.

{¶6} Husband filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s contempt order

two days later on January 23, 2025. That same day, husband filed his first docket

statement, which had conflicting indications as to the necessity of preparing

transcripts for the appeal. Consequently, on February 6, 2025, this court entered a

show cause order requiring husband to file an amended docket statement by February

20, 2025, in which he was to (1) check the proper boxes, (2) have the court reporter

complete the court-reporter certification, and (3) attach a copy of the transcript order

to the docket statement, as required by Loc.R. 9(B)(1), or clearly indicate that there

will be no transcripts, that the transcripts have already been prepared and filed, or that

there will be a statement under App.R. 9(C).

{¶7} On February 10, 2025, husband filed a request for transcription in the

trial court. The request indicated that only a transcript of the proceedings on January

21, 2025, was needed for the appeal. This transcript was filed in the trial court on

February 19, 2025.

{¶8} On March 7, 2025, this court entered another show cause order

acknowledging that one transcript had been filed but pointing out husband had not

filed an amended docket statement with this court. This court therefore ordered

1 The record is unclear as to whether this amount was ever paid.

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

husband to file an amended docket statement by March 14, 2025, clarifying the state

of the record and indicating whether more transcripts were to be prepared and filed

or if the filed transcript was to be the only transcript. On March 10, 2025, husband

filed another docket statement indicating that no additional transcripts would be filed.

This docket statement included a different transcript request form; however, the form

still only requested a transcript for the proceedings on January 21, 2025. Thereafter,

the record was filed on March 14, 2025, inclusive of only one transcript from the

hearing on January 21, 2025.

{¶9} Husband now raises five “issues presented” for this court’s review. He

lists these issues as (1) whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for

contempt without sufficient evidence of an intentional violation of court orders, (2)

whether the trial court improperly relied on false and uncorroborated claims by wife,

(3) whether the trial court failed to consider critical evidence demonstrating his lawful

presence and access to the home, (4) whether the trial court demonstrated bias and

prejudiced the proceedings against him, and (5) whether the court misapplied the legal

standard under R.C. 2705.02.

II. Analysis

{¶10} Husband presents sufficiency and manifest-weight-of-the-evidence

challenges regarding the trial court’s finding of contempt. He also argues that the trial

court demonstrated bias in the proceedings and misapplied the law under R.C.

2705.02.

{¶11} Wife argues that this court must presume the regularity of the

proceedings as husband did not cause the necessary transcript to be included in the

record. She further argues that husband’s “issues presented” should be overruled as

he did not provide factual and legal support for his arguments as required by App.R.

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

16(A)(7).

{¶12} As mentioned above, the only transcript of proceedings that husband

caused to be included in the record was a transcript of the proceeding that occurred

on January 21, 2025. This transcript appears to be a scheduled pretrial hearing

regarding custody issues. It does not contain anything substantive regarding the

contempt proceedings. Rather, the trial court simply asks husband for his address at

the start of the proceedings so that the court may mail him a copy of its written

decision regarding the contempt.

{¶13} The record shows that the contempt proceeding occurred on December

3, 2024. This transcript was not included in the record. Therefore, wife is correct that

husband failed to cause the necessary transcript to be included in the record.

Consequently, this court must presume the regularity of the proceeding. See

Treasurer v. Scott, 2022-Ohio-1467, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.), quoting Knapp v. Edwards

Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980) (“‘When portions of the transcript

necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing

court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no

choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.’”).

{¶14} Beyond that, wife is also correct that husband did not cite to the record

or any legal authority in support of his arguments as required by App.R. 16(A)(7). See,

e.g., Guthrie v. Guthrie, 2024-Ohio-5581, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.), quoting Tyra v. Tyra, 2022-

Ohio-2504, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.), quoting App.R. 16(A)(7) (“An appellant must ‘present “[a]n

argument containing [his or] her contentions . . . 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 [the] appellant

relies.”’” (Emphasis in original.)); In re Estate of Joseph, 2025-Ohio-858, ¶ 12 (1st

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Dist.), quoting Olthaus v. Niesen, 2023-Ohio-4710, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.) (“A party’s ‘“failure

to develop an authority-based argument provides sufficient grounds to” reject [an]

appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.’”); Pietrangelo v. Lorain Cty.

Printing & Publishing Co., 2017-Ohio-8783, ¶ 23 (9th Dist.), quoting In re B.P., 2015-

Ohio-48, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.), citing App.R. 16(A)(7) (“‘[M]erely setting forth conclusory

statements’ does not satisfy an appellant’s burden on appeal.”).

{¶15} Moreover, nothing in the trial court’s contempt decision indicates that

the court misapplied the legal standard under R.C. 2705.02. Therefore, we must

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. Conclusion

{¶16} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule the “issues presented” for review

and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE and MOORE, JJ., concur.