Salyers v. Salyers
This text of 2024 Ohio 5656 (Salyers v. Salyers) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as Salyers v. Salyers, 2024-Ohio-5656.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY
REBECCA SALYERS, CASE NO. 2024-T-0070
Plaintiff-Appellant, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division DEREK SALYERS,
Defendant-Appellee. Trial Court No. 2023 DR 00075
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Decided: December 2, 2024 Judgment: Appeal dismissed
Brendan J. Keating and Anthony G. Rossi, III, Guarnieri & Secrest, PLL, 151 East Market Street, P.O. Box 4270, Warren, OH 44482 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).
Colton D. Williams, 5005 Rockside Road, Suite 350, Independence, OH 44131 (For Defendant-Appellee).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.
{¶1} On September 13, 2024, appellant, Rebecca Salyers, through counsel, filed
an appeal from the August 16, 2024 entry, in which the Trumbull County Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, found that it was in the minor child’s best interest to
allocate parental rights and responsibilities under a shared parenting plan and ordered the
parties to submit modifications to appellee, Derek Salyers’, shared parenting plan.
{¶2} The judgment of a trial court is immediately appealable if it constitutes a final
order. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution; Perkins v. Perkins, 2023-Ohio- 2924, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.). 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.
Slabe v. Slabe, 2023-Ohio-4485, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.).
{¶3} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a final order as one of the following:
{¶4} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect
determines the action and prevents a judgment;
{¶5} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or
upon a summary application in an action after judgment;
{¶6} “(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial;
{¶7} “(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both
of the following apply:
{¶8} “(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional
remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect
to the provisional remedy.
{¶9} “(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective
remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and
parties in the action.
{¶10} “(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained
as a class action;
{¶11} “(6) An order determining the constitutionality of any changes to the Revised
Code . . .;
Case No. 2024-T-0070 {¶12} “(7) An order in an appropriation proceeding * * *.”
{¶13} In this case, pursuant to R.C. 2505.02, the August 16, 2024 entry does not
fit within any of the categories for being a final and appealable order. Further, as of the
date this appeal was filed, no divorce decree had been issued.
{¶14} In general, in a divorce action, no final appealable order exists until all
issues relating to property division, support and parental rights and responsibilities have
been addressed. Perkins at ¶ 14. A judgment entry that leaves issues unresolved and
contemplates further action is not final. Id. Since the August 16, 2024 entry, which is the
subject of this appeal, leaves issues unresolved and contemplates further action, this
court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits in this matter.
{¶15} For the foregoing reasons, the August 16, 2024 entry of the trial court is not
a final appealable order. This appeal is hereby, sua sponte, dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
{¶16} Appeal dismissed.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
Case No. 2024-T-0070
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 Ohio 5656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salyers-v-salyers-ohioctapp-2024.