Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull
Appeals from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division, Case Nos. 2011 DR 00380 and 2011
A. Swauger, S.E., Warren, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
H. Chaney, III, Daniel Daniluk, L.L.C, S.E., Warren, (For
Jennifer R. Robbins, (Guardian ad Litem).
COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J.
Appellant, Logan Otto Uber, appeals from the March 15, 2016
judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division, granting appellee's, Dana
Lyn Uber, March 11, 2016 motion for reconsideration and
remanding the matter to the magistrate for further
consideration. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this
The parties were married on June 21, 2008. Two children were
born as issue of the marriage, L.M.U. (d.o.b. May 19, 2008)
and W.J.U. (d.o.b. April 25, 2011).
On October 11, 2011, appellee filed a complaint for divorce.
A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor children. On
August 28, 2012, an agreed entry for divorce was filed. The
marital property and debts were divided and a shared
parenting plan was adopted.
On July 31, 2014, appellant filed a motion to modify the
shared parenting plan and requested a reduction in child
support. On October 13, 2015, a hearing commenced before the
magistrate. On October 26, 2015, the magistrate issued a
decision and recommended granting appellant's motion to
modify. The trial court approved and adopted the
magistrate's decision that same date.
On November 9, 2015, appellee filed objections to the
magistrate's decision indicating, inter alia, that:
"The magistrate failed to properly consider all relevant
and admissible evidence as the magistrate was inattentive to
the testimony of [appellee]. The magistrate appeared to be
suffering from an illness or other infirmity that prevented
him from paying due attention to the testimony offered by the
parties and denied [appellee] of her right to a fair
hearing." (T.d. 84).
On March 7, 2016, the trial court overruled appellee's
objections to the magistrate's decision finding that she
failed to file a transcript. Appellee did not appeal that
decision. Instead, appellee filed a motion for
reconsideration on March 11, 2016, stating in part:
"Specifically, the primary objection of [appellee] was a
denial of her fundamental due process right to a fair and
complete hearing. That right was denied when the magistrate
assigned to the case failed to properly adjudicate the motion
before the court. The magistrate assigned was not attentive
to the proceedings and appeared to be sleeping during the
testimony of [appellee]. A transcript of the hearing ...