T.A. v. M.C.

2024 Ohio 5123

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 25, 2024
• Docket: 30138
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as T.A. v. M.C., 2024-Ohio-5123.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

T.A. : : Appellee : C.A. No. 30138 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CV 02242 : M.C. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on October 25, 2024

M.C., Pro Se Appellant

T.A., Pro Se Appellee

.............

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} M.C. appeals from an order granting of a civil stalking protection order

(“CSPO”) in favor of T.A. and against M.C. For the following reasons, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed. -2-

{¶ 2} T.A. filed a petition for a CSPO against M.C. on April 17, 2024. The petition

alleged that M.C. had repeatedly assaulted T.A. and, in one incident, had caused T.A. to

twist her knee. According to T.A., she suffered panic attacks as a result of M.C.’s

behavior. T.A. sought electronic monitoring of M.C. based upon her alleged stalking and

harassing behavior.

{¶ 3} The ex parte petition was granted, and a full hearing before a magistrate was

set for May 2, 2024. The magistrate issued a CSPO on May 6, 2024; the magistrate

found T.A.’s testimony more credible than M.C.’s and also found that T.A. had engaged

in a pattern of conduct such that M.C’s fear of physical harm by T.A. was reasonable.

The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 4} On May 9, 2024, M.C. filed a notice of appeal pro se. We issued an order

setting deadlines for briefing in this appeal, which stated, in part: “The parties shall

address in their briefs whether relief can be granted on appeal, as it appears that no

objections were filed to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision.” M.C.

requested an extension of time to file her brief “for evidence,” which we granted the

extension, setting a deadline of July 5, 2024.

{¶ 5} On July 5, 2024, M.C. completed and filed a pro se form document that stated

she was appealing the “civil stalking order judge’s decision” entered on May 2. 2024.

The word “Briefs” was handwritten in the caption of the document. M.C. has not complied

with our May 31 order to address her failure to file objections to the magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 6} R.C. 2903.214 permits a person to seek a protection order against anyone

over the age of 18 who has engaged in menacing by stalking, in violation of R.C. -3-

2903.211. That offense prohibits “engaging in a pattern of conduct” that knowingly

causes “another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other

person . . . or cause mental distress to the other person . . .” R.C. 2903.211(A).

{¶ 7} Civ.R. 65.1 governs civil protection orders. A trial court “may refer the

proceedings under these special statutory proceedings to a magistrate.” R.C. 65.1(F)(1).

If the matter is referred for a full hearing and determination, “the magistrate shall conduct

the full hearing and, upon conclusion of the hearing, deny or grant a protection order.”

Civ.R. 65(F)(3)(a). “A magistrate's denial or granting of a protection order after a full

hearing shall comply with the statutory requirements relating to such orders and is not

effective unless adopted by the court.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(i). “When a magistrate has

denied or granted a protection order after a full hearing, the court may adopt the

magistrate's denial or granting of the protection order upon review of the order and a

determination that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the order.”

Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii). “A court's adoption . . . of a magistrate's denial or granting of a

protection order after a full hearing shall be effective when signed by the court and filed

with the clerk.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(v).

{¶ 8} “A party may file written objections to a court's adoption, modification, or

rejection of a magistrate's denial or granting of a protection order after a full hearing, or

any terms of such an order, within fourteen days of the court's filing of the order . . .”

Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i). A party objecting “under this division has the burden of showing

that an error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the order, or that the credible

evidence of record is insufficient to support the granting or denial of the protection order, -4-

or that the magistrate abused the magistrate's discretion in including or failing to include

specific terms in the protection order.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iii).

{¶ 9} } Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv) states:

Objections based upon evidence of record shall be supported by a transcript

of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate or an affidavit of that

evidence if a transcript is not available. . . . The objecting party shall file the

transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing objections

unless the court extends the time in writing for preparation of the transcript

or other good cause. . .

{¶ 10} Most significantly, Civ.R. 65.1(G) states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule, an order entered by the

court under division (F)(3)(c) . . . of this rule is a final, appealable order.

However, a party must timely file objections to such an order under division

(F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal, and the timely filing of such

objections shall stay the running of the time for appeal until the filing of the

court's ruling on the objections.

(Emphasis added.)

{¶ 11} Civ.R. 65.1 was amended in 2016 “to preclude challenges to civil protection

orders when an appellant fails to object to a trial court decision.” Curry v. Bettison, 2023-

Ohio-1911, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.). Here, the record reflects that M.C. did not file objections to

the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision granting her petition for a CSPO -5-

before filing her appeal.

{¶ 12} Curry further discussed whether a plain error analysis applied in these

cases, noting that “Civ.R. 65.1, unlike Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), does not provide for plain

error review where a party fails to object to a decision in the trial court.” Id. at ¶ 2. Curry

clarified and summarized the analysis that should occur in Civ.R. 65.1 appeals, stating:

(1) where litigants fail to comply with Civ.R. 65.1(G)’s requirement of filing

of objections, they cannot challenge the trial court's decision on appeal, and

the decision must be affirmed; (2) no issues that are raised, whether they

are phrased as error or plain error, can be considered; (3) this court should

not engage in any analysis that directly or indirectly involves the merits of

the trial court order; (4) where a litigant has objected in the trial court as

specified by Civ.R. 65.1, this court retains the ability to consider error that

is raised on appeal, including plain error, if the latter type of error is raised

by a party . . . ; and (5) when a party fails to file objections, the court of

appeals cannot consider or cite the content of the transcript.

(Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 67.

{¶ 13} Because M.C. did not file objections in the trial court before filing her appeal,

we are precluded from considering her arguments. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

EPLEY, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur. -6-