Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Catudal v. Catudal

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

June 27, 2013

Chance Catudal, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Anna C. Catudal, Defendant-Appellee.

APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. (C.P.C. No. 10DR-12-4934)

Chance Catudal, pro se.

Tyack, Blackmore, Liston & Nigh Co., L.PA., Joseph A. Nigh, and Courtney A. Zollars, for appellee.

DECISION

BROWN, J.

{¶ 1} In these consolidated cases, Chance Catudal, plaintiff-appellant, appeals four judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, all of which relate to post-decree motions filed in the divorce proceedings between appellant and Anna C. Catudal, defendant-appellee. Appellant has also filed a motion requesting exception to mootness doctrine.

{¶ 2} Appellant and appellee were married April 1, 2009, and had one daughter, Haley, who was born in March 2006. On October 20, 2011, the parties' marriage was terminated by a decree of divorce. A deluge of filings by appellant followed.

{¶ 3} On October 5, 2012, appellee filed a motion to stay the proceedings, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 522, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 ("SCRA"), based upon appellee's military status. On October 15, 2012, the trial court granted a stay for a period of 90 days. On October 18, 2012, the magistrate stayed all proceedings before him based upon the trial court's SCRA stay.

{¶ 4} These consolidated cases involve judgments in four separately filed appeals in case Nos. 12AP-951, 12AP-991, 13AP-79, and 13AP-94. Related to 12AP-951, the trial court issued a judgment on November 7, 2012. In that judgment, the court addressed appellant's March 19, 2012 amended motion to strike and/or deny guardian ad litem ("GAL") Chris Heckert's motion to enforce, and appellant's March 20, 2012 motion to reconsider judgment that resulted in the journal entry restraining him from filing exhibits. With regard to appellant's motion to strike/deny the GAL's motion to enforce, appellant sought to be relieved from his obligation to pay the GAL approximately $450.48. The trial court denied the motion, finding that, because appellant voluntarily dismissed his appeal of the judgment entry decree of divorce, he could not now contest the sufficiency of the GAL's work or the court's findings related to the GAL's recommendations. The court said the proper procedure for contesting these pre-decree matters was in the original appeal, which he dismissed. With regard to appellant's motion to reconsider judgment that resulted in the journal entry restraining appellant from filing exhibits, appellant complained that his constitutional rights to fair hearings had been denied. The trial court denied the motion, finding that appellant had filed an exorbitant number of pleadings and had only filed one appeal, eventually dismissing it. The trial court also pointed out that, insofar as appellant complains that the court terminated his motion to remove the GAL as "moot" before it was reviewed by the court, the magistrate actually granted appellant's motion, so no further hearings were necessary.

{¶ 5} Related to 12AP-991, the trial court issued a judgment on November 27, 2012. In that judgment, the court addressed appellant's October 18, 2012 motion to vacate the judgment granting the SCRA stay; appellant's October 24, 2012 motion to vacate the magistrate's order that stayed proceedings; and appellant's November 13, 2012 motion for a new trial. However, the trial court denied/dismissed all of appellant's motions based upon the 90-day SCRA stay. The court also warned appellant that his behavior was problematic and would likely lead to a vexatious litigator designation pursuant to R.C. 2323.52.

{¶ 6} Related to 13AP-79, the trial court issued a judgment on January 25, 2013. In that judgment, the court addressed appellant's October 5, 2012 motion for emergency ex parte orders; appellant's October 5, 2012 motion requesting in chambers interview of Haley prior to trial; appellant's November 16, 2012 objection to entry granting attorney Bryan Bowen's leave to withdraw; appellant's November 16, 2012 objection to the sua sponte withdrawal of his objections and motions; appellant's December 28, 2012 motion for leave to file parenting proceeding affidavit; and appellant's January 2, 2013 motion to remove the GAL. However, the trial court denied/dismissed all of appellant's motions based upon the 90-day SCRA stay in effect. The court once again warned appellant that his behavior was problematic and would likely lead to a vexatious litigator designation pursuant to R.C. 2323.52.

{¶ 7} Related to 13AP-94, a hearing was held before a magistrate on January 25, 2013 pursuant to (1) appellant's motions for contempt filed May 16, July 18, July 26, July 31, and October 5, 2012 (comprised of 22 contempt motions), (2) appellant's various other procedural motions pending at the time of the hearing, and (3) appellee's March 1, 2012 motion for temporary restraining order. Appellant was incarcerated at the time of the hearing, and the magistrate granted appellee's motion to dismiss all matters pending before the court and granted her request to withdraw her only pending motion. The court indicated that only appellant's September 24, 2012 motion for relief from judgment and GAL Heckert's February 8, 2012 motion for contempt remained pending. The magistrate's decision was adopted by the trial court on February 1, 2013 without objections having been filed to the magistrate's decision.

{¶ 8} Appellant, pro se, appeals the judgments of the trial court. Appellant has failed to file a brief in 13AP-94. Although we have separated appellant's assignments of error according to appellate number, for ease of reference, we will number such sequentially.

{¶ 9} In 12AP-951, appellant asserts the following "issues, " which we construe as assignments of error:

[I.] The Hearing on August 28, 2012 and Browne's Judgment Entry did not match up with Appellant's Objection(s) to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.