Nnadi v. Nnadi

2015 Ohio 3981
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 29, 2015
Docket15AP-13
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 2015 Ohio 3981 (Nnadi v. Nnadi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nnadi v. Nnadi, 2015 Ohio 3981 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

[Cite as Nnadi v. Nnadi, 2015-Ohio-3981.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Stanley E. Nnadi, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 15AP-13 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13DR-3449)

Felicia N. Nnadi, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)

Defendant-Appellee. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on September 29, 2015

Richard B. Parry, for appellant.

Cynthia M. Roy, for appellee.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations

HORTON, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Stanley E. Nnadi, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his complaint for divorce without prejudice. Because this court lacks jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND {¶ 2} Plaintiff and defendant-appellee, Felicia N. Nnadi, were married on September 13, 1991. Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce on September 16, 2013. Four children were born as issue of the marriage; only one child was a minor at the time of the divorce proceedings. Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that he and defendant owned various pieces of real estate, and alleged that he had acquired other properties before the marriage. The disputed issues before the court for consideration included child support, spousal support, and the division of marital debts and assets. No. 15AP-13 2

{¶ 3} On January 29, 2014, the magistrate issued temporary orders obligating plaintiff to pay defendant $1,038.60 per month in temporary child support, to pay one- half of the minor child's high school tuition, one-half the cost of the minor child's braces, and $1,000 in attorney's fees. {¶ 4} On June 5, 2014, defendant filed a motion to compel discovery, asking the court to order plaintiff to comply with defendant's request for production of documents. Defendant also filed a motion for contempt on June 5, 2014, asserting that the court should hold plaintiff in contempt for his failure to abide by the magistrate's temporary orders. Defendant filed an affidavit in support of the motion for contempt, averring that plaintiff had not paid any of the items he was ordered to pay under the magistrate's January 29, 2014 temporary orders. {¶ 5} The magistrate granted defendant's motion to compel on July 22, 2014. The magistrate ordered plaintiff to "pay Defendant's attorney fees in the amount of $750.00 within 14 days," and obligated plaintiff to respond to defendant's request for production of documents "within 30 days." (July 22, 2014 Magistrate's Order, 1.) The magistrate noted that plaintiff's failure to comply with this order "may result in a finding of contempt and additional sanctions." (July 22, 2014 Magistrate's Order, 1.) {¶ 6} The matter came before the court for trial on December 16, 2014. Plaintiff explained that he was retired, and that he owned various rental properties throughout the Columbus, Ohio area. Defendant stated that she was employed as a nurse. The parties informed the court that they were not willing to stipulate as to the other party's income. As such, the court explained that it needed "W-2s, 1099Rs for him, full tax returns and whatever they have to document what they've been paid so far this year. * * * And I want it tomorrow." (Tr. 13.) The court informed the parties that there was going to be a "running list of things I'm going to have you get tomorrow -- for tomorrow," and observed that these documents should have been produced "a long time ago." (Tr. 13.) The court stated that "[a]nybody who fails to turn up with whatever I'm telling you to turn up with tomorrow is going to pay fines. I will fine you." (Tr. 13.) The court summarized the information it wanted the parties to return with the following day, noting, "you all owe me values on the vehicles. You owe me copies of the titles on the ones that you own. You owe me mortgage statements for the properties that you have mortgages on." (Tr. 61.) The No. 15AP-13 3

court also stated that it needed information regarding the parties' bank accounts, noting "I need current balances in the four that you [defendant] have and the two that you [plaintiff] have. I need that tomorrow." (Tr. 87.) {¶ 7} At the beginning of trial the following day, defendant asked the court to dismiss the case for plaintiff's "failure to cooperate and failure to prosecute." (Tr. 96.) In response, the court stated as follows: Counsel, I will tell you that I too have concerns that the assets were properly disclosed and that they will be properly accounted for today. And I have concerns about the fact that I see at least two orders for the payment of attorney's fees that were issued to your client that I have -- He admitted he didn't pay the $750.

And I'll allow you to present your case in chief; but if I at any time feel that I am not getting the information that I need to render a decision, I will, in fact, dismiss this case for failure to adequately prosecute it. So fair warning before you begin, as I gave you yesterday.

(Tr. 96-97.)

{¶ 8} During plaintiff's case-in-chief, plaintiff failed to provide the court with the information it had requested. For example, when plaintiff's attorney asked plaintiff to state the balances in his two bank accounts, plaintiff stated that he had "no knowledge" of the amounts in his bank accounts. (Tr. 199.) The court noted that it had told the parties "yesterday that you would be subject to fines if you failed to produce documentary evidence about the current balances in your two accounts." (Tr. 199.) Defendant then renewed her motion to dismiss, and the trial court granted the motion, stating as follows: I'm granting the motion. I'm sustaining it. I'm dismissing this case for failure to prosecute. You've not proven anything. There's no way possible that I can grant you spousal support when, despite the fact that I told you to get information regarding your bank account, you show up here today without it and testify -- and I quote -- I do not have no knowledge. I don’t know. I have no knowledge because I just came back on Sunday. That is ridiculous. No comment from you. You're excused from the stand. This case is dismissed.

(Tr. 200.) No. 15AP-13 4

{¶ 9} On December 19, 2014, the trial court issued a decision and entry dismissing plaintiff's complaint for divorce "without prejudice," pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 41(B)(1). (Emphasis sic.) (Decision and Entry, 1.) The court observed that both the "court file and the transcript of the divorce proceeding are replete with Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the valid orders/admonitions of this Court to timely produce testimony and documentary evidence necessary for the Court to * * * ensure a fair and final disposition of the marital and separate property assets/liabilities." (Emphasis sic.) (Decision and Entry, 1.) II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR {¶ 10} Plaintiff appeals, assigning the following errors for our review: [I.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTION. THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AN ERROR OF LAW AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

[II.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER.

III. LACK OF A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER {¶ 11} Ohio appellate courts have jurisdiction to review only final, appealable orders of lower courts within their districts. Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2); R.C. 2501.02. If an order is not a final, appealable order, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Prod. Credit Assn. v. Hedges, 87 Ohio App.3d 207 (4th Dist.1993). Appellate courts have the duty to sua sponte examine any deficiencies in jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Piacentino v. Heinz
2025 Ohio 5174 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Brime v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2025 Ohio 1383 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
McCullough v. Bennett
2022 Ohio 1880 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
Real Time Resolutions, Inc. v. Vogelpohl
2021 Ohio 1270 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
Murphy v. Murphy
2021 Ohio 101 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
Fahncke v. Fahncke
2020 Ohio 433 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
Johnson v. Stone
2019 Ohio 4630 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
K.L. v. Franklin Cnty. Children Servs.
2018 Ohio 3139 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
Harris v. Delong
2018 Ohio 2493 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 Ohio 3981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nnadi-v-nnadi-ohioctapp-2015.