Perkins v. Perkins

2025 Ohio 510

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 2024-G-0050
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Perkins v. Perkins, 2025-Ohio-510.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY

JAMES R. PERKINS, CASE NO. 2024-G-0050

Plaintiff-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

STACY L. PERKINS, Trial Court No. 2021 DC 000157 Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Decided: February 18, 2025 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

J. Michael Drain, Jr., 147 Bell Street, Suite 202, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 and Louis A. D’Amico, 6449 Wilson Mills Road, Mayfield Village, OH 44143 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Gregory S. Costabile, 1400 Fifth Third Center, 600 Superior Avenue, East, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Stacy L. Perkins, through counsel, appeals three separate

Geauga County Court of Common Pleas entries from May 3, 2023, August 20, 2024, and

November 18, 2024.

{¶2} In 2021, appellee, James R. Perkins, initiated a complaint for divorce.

Appellant filed her answer and counterclaim. A Magistrate’s Decision was filed on January

9, 2023. Appellee filed objections, and in its May 3, 2023 entry, the trial court sustained

appellee’s objections in part, and ordered that the Magistrate did not err in granting the

parties a divorce or in granting the shared parenting plan. The trial court further ordered that the matter be set for a new trial regarding the division of property, attorney fees, child

and medical support obligations, and appellee’s disability, employment, pension, and

separate property claims. Appellant appealed that decision. However, that case was

dismissed for lack of a final order. Perkins v. Perkins, 2023-Ohio-2924 (11th Dist.).

{¶3} On March 5, 2024, the trial court Magistrate issued findings of fact,

conclusions of law and a decision. Appellant filed objections, and the trial court overruled

the objections in its August 20, 2024 entry. Appellant appealed, and we dismissed that

appeal for lack of a final order. Perkins v. Perkins, 2024-Ohio-5162(11th Dist.).

{¶4} In its November 18, 2024 entry, the trial court adopted the January 9, 2023

Magistrate’s Decision as to the granting of the divorce and shared parenting plan and the

March 5, 2024 Magistrate’s Decision in its entirety.

{¶5} Since this court may entertain only those appeals from final judgments, we

must determine whether there is a final appealable order. A trial court judgment is

immediately appealable if it constitutes a final order. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio

Constitution. If a lower court’s judgment is not final, then an appellate court has no

jurisdiction, and the matter must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. of N. Am., 44

Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). In the absence of other applicable authority conferring

jurisdiction, a lower court’s judgment must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 to be final and appealable.

Salyers v. Salyers, 2024-Ohio-5656, ¶ 2 (11th Dist.).

{¶6} The mere adoption of a Magistrate’s Decision does not constitute a final

appealable order. Walsh v. Walsh, 2022-Ohio-1101, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.), citing to In re

Castrovince, 1996 WL 1056815, *1 (11th Dist. Aug. 16, 1996). A trial court merely

incorporating by reference the recommendations of a Magistrate’s Decision is insufficient

Case No. 2024-G-0050 for a final appealable order. Id. Rather, the Magistrate’s Decision and the trial court’s

judgment entry must be “separate and distinct instruments which are complete and

independent of each other.” Id. The trial court’s entry must contain an independent

judgment disposing of the matters at issue between the parties so that the parties do not

need to refer to any other document. State v. Gathright, 2019-Ohio-3429, ¶ 22 (5th Dist.).

{¶7} In the instant matter, the November 18, 2024 Judgment merely adopted the

January 9, 2023 and March 5, 2024 Magistrate’s Decisions. The trial court did not issue

its own “separate and distinct” independent judgment setting forth its ruling on the matter.

{¶8} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing analysis, this appeal is hereby sua

sponte dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

{¶9} Appeal dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2024-G-0050