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.

Uber v. Uber

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull

March 31, 2017

DANA LYN UBER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LOGAN OTTO UBER, Defendant-Appellant. v

         Civil Appeals from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case Nos. 2011 DR 00380 and 2011 JC 00052.

         Judgment: Appeals dismissed.

          Terry A. Swauger, S.E., Warren, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

          John H. Chaney, III, Daniel Daniluk, L.L.C, S.E., Warren, (For Defendant-Appellant).

          Jennifer R. Robbins, (Guardian ad Litem).

          OPINION

          COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J.

         {¶1} 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 appeal.

         {¶2} 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).

         {¶3} 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.

         {¶4} 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.

         {¶5} On November 9, 2015, appellee filed objections to the magistrate's decision indicating, inter alia, that:

         {¶6} "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).

         {¶7} 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:

         {¶8} "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 ...


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.