Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Fairfield
RAIMUNDO J. ORTEGA Plaintiff-Appellee
IVETH P. ORTEGA Defendant-Appellant
from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Divison,
Case No. 2011 DR 00326
Plaintiff-Appellee RAIMUNDO J. ORTEGA.
Defendant-Appellant DAVID W. POSTON.
W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise,
1} Defendant-Appellant, Iveth Ortega, appeals the January 27,
2015 decree of divorce of the Court of Common Pleas of
Fairfield County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division.
Plaintiff-Appellee is Raimundo Ortega.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} On June 1, 1987, appellant and appellee were married. On
June 24, 2011, appellee filed a complaint for divorce. The
parties had four children, two of which were still minors at
the time of the divorce filing, but are now emancipated.
3} Hearings before a magistrate were held on March 20, and
May 1, and 9, 2013. The magistrate issued a decision on May
2, 2014. Appellant filed objections. By judgment entries
filed September 18, and 24, 2014, the trial court denied the
objections. A final decree of divorce was filed on January
4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before
this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as
5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CREDITED APPELLEE WITH
RECEIPT OF $3, 500.00 ON THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE 2011
FEDERAL TAX REFUND, WHEN APPELLANT ACTUALLY RECEIVED $6,
853.00 FROM THAT REFUND."
6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING APPELLANT TO PAY
CHILD SUPPORT FOR TWO CHILDREN RETROACTIVE TO MARCH 20, 2013,
WHEN ONE OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, DAVID, CONTINUED TO RESIDE
SOLELY WITH APPELLANT."
7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
IMPUTING APPELLANT WITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $16, 536.00 WHEN
SHE HAD NOT BEEN EMPLOYED SINCE 1993."
8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
IT ORDERED APPELLANT TO PAY ONE HALF OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM
9} In her four assignments of error, appellant claims the
trial court erred in making decisions on issues which were
also raised in her objections to the magistrate's
decision. In denying the objections, the trial court noted
the following in its judgment entry filed September 18, 2014:
The Defendant objects to certain factual findings made by the
Magistrate in the Magistrate's Decision. According to
Ohio Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), "An objection to a
factual finding, . . . shall be supported by a transcript of
all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that
finding 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. . . ." The Defendant has not filed a transcript.
Without a transcript, the Court is unable to determine
whether the Magistrate properly determined the factual issues
raised in Defendant's objections to the Magistrate's
Decision. Pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), it
was the responsibility of the Defendant to obtain and file
the transcript. Defendant's objections to the factual
findings made by the Magistrate are therefore denied.
Therefore, Defendant's Objection to the Magistrate's
Decision is found not well taken and is denied. The
Magistrate's decision filed May 2, 2014 is ...