Tax Ease OH IV, L.L.C. v. Osmic

2025 Ohio 2306

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 30, 2025
• Docket: 2025-L-045
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Tax Ease OH IV, L.L.C. v. Osmic, 2025-Ohio-2306.]

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

TAX EASE OH IV, LLC, CASE NO. 2025-L-045

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

HUBERT N. OSMIC a.k.a. HUGH OSMIC, Trial Court No. 2022 CF 000638

Defendant-Appellant,

LINDA M. BUTORAC,

Defendant-Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: June 30, 2025 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Austin B. Barnes, III, Sandhu Law Group, LLC, 1213 Prospect Avenue, Suite 300, Cleveland, OH 44115 (For Plaintiff-Appellee, Tax Ease OH IV, LLC).

Mate Rimac and Nicholas J. Horrigan, Harpst Becker LLC, 1559 Corporate Woods Parkway, Suite 250, Uniontown, OH 44685 (For Defendant-Appellee, Linda M. Butorac).

Hubert N. Osmic a.k.a. Hugh Osmic, pro se, 5209 Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114 (Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Hubert N. Osmic a.k.a. Hugh Osmic, filed a pro se appeal from

an April 8, 2025 Lake County Court of Common Pleas Magistrate’s Order. In that order,

the magistrate denied the motions for summary judgment filed by appellee, Tax Ease OH IV, LLC, and by appellee, Linda M. Butorac, and denied appellant’s motion to extend the

time to respond to the motions for summary judgment.

{¶2} Butorac filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable

order. Appellant has filed no opposition to the motion.

{¶3} This court may entertain only those appeals from final judgments or orders.

Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989). Under Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the

Ohio Constitution, an appellate court can immediately review a judgment of the trial court

only if it constitutes a “final order” in the action. Quail Point Condominium Assn. v.

Rogers, 2024-Ohio-5770, ¶ 2 (11th Dist.). If the lower court’s order is not final, then this

court does not have jurisdiction to review the case, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989).

{¶4} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a “final order” and sets forth seven categories of

appealable judgments, and if the judgment of the trial court satisfies any of them, it will

be deemed a “final order” and can be immediately appealed and reviewed. In this matter,

the April 8, 2025 Magistrate’s Order being appealed does not fit within any of the

categories for being a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B) and did not dispose of all claims.

{¶5} In general, “a magistrate may enter orders without judicial approval if

necessary to regulate the proceedings and if not dispositive of a claim or defense of a

party.” See Civ.R. 53(D)(2)(a)(i). We have explained that although a magistrate’s order

is effective without judicial approval, it is not “directly appealable.” Quail Point at ¶ 4.

Hence, a magistrate’s order is simply interlocutory in nature. Id.

{¶6} Here, the April 8, 2025 order is an interlocutory order and is not final and

appealable. This court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. However, nothing

PAGE 2 OF 4

Case No. 2025-L-045 is preventing appellant from obtaining effective relief through an appeal once the trial

court has entered a final judgment in the action.

{¶7} Based upon the foregoing analysis, the order of the trial court is not final

and appealable. Accordingly, Butorac’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted, and this

appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case No. 2025-L-045 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that

appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE MATT LYNCH

PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 4 OF 4

Case No. 2025-L-045