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.

Pallone v. Pallone

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

December 29, 2017

Denise Pallone, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roman Pallone, Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations (C.P.C. No. 05DR-3266)

         On brief:

          Roman J. Pallone, pro se.

         Argued:

          Roman Pallone.

          DECISION

          TYACK, P.J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Roman Pallone, appeals from numerous rulings and orders involving post-decree issues in his divorce case. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         I. FACTS AND CASE HISTORY

         {¶ 2} The parties Roman and Denise Pallone were married on June 7, 1997 and had three children born during their marriage. On January 27, 2006, the parties filed an agreed judgment entry decree of divorce and an agreed shared parenting plan/decree. On March 21, 2013, Denise Pallone moved for termination or modification of the shared parenting plan and filed a motion for contempt, alleging Roman failed to abide by the terms of the agreed entries.

         {¶ 3} On May 16, 2013, Roman filed a motion to dismiss Denise's motion for contempt. On May 24, 2013, Roman filed a motion to dismiss Denise's motion for termination or modification of the agreed shared parenting plan. On October 21, 2013, Roman filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Denise had failed to comply with the agreed entries. On February 13, 2014, Roman filed a motion to attribute affirmative responses. On April 22, 2014, Roman filed a motion to compel discovery, a motion to interview the children, and a motion to appoint an attorney advocate for the children. On April 23, 2014, Roman filed an amended motion for contempt.

         {¶ 4} The trial court's magistrate held hearings on the matter for more than 10 days in April, May, and June 2014. On February 6, 2015, the magistrate filed a decision which the trial court adopted on the same day. On April 1, 2015, Roman filed 35 objections to the magistrate's decision. Roman filed a motion for a transcript at public expense, asserting he was unable to afford the cost. On April 2, 2015, the trial court denied Roman's motion for transcript at public expense. On April 9, 2015, Roman filed a motion for alternatives to transcript. On April 10, 2015, Denise filed a memorandum contra to Roman's objections. Also on April 10, 2015, the trial court filed Roman's affidavit of indigency which was signed by Roman on April 1, 2015.

         {¶ 5} On May 1, 2015, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying Roman's April 9, 2015 motion for alternatives to transcript. On June 2, 2015, Roman filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's May 1, 2015 decision. On June 10, 2015, Denise filed a motion to enforce jail sentence, asserting that Roman had failed to purge the finding of contempt entered in the magistrate's February 6, 2015 decision.

         {¶ 6} On June 11, 2015, Roman filed a motion for an extension of time to supplement his objections to the magistrate's decision. On July 1, 2015, the trial court granted Roman's June 11, 2015 motion. On the same date, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying Roman's June 2, 2015 motion for reconsideration. On July 17, 2015, the trial court filed a decision and entry denying Roman's objections to the magistrate's decision for failure to file a complete transcript. Roman appealed this decision and entry to this court on August 17, 2015.

         {¶ 7} On September 29, 2016, we remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Roman's affidavit of indigency is credible. We also ordered that the trial court must review the partial transcripts submitted by Roman and determine whether the portions of the transcripts, in addition to any other material submitted by Roman, pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), are sufficient for the court to resolve Roman's objections.

         {¶ 8} On May 4, 2017, the trial court's decision and entry denied and dismissed all of Roman's 35 objections to the magistrate's decision with the exception that one objection was found moot, one was voluntarily withdrawn, and one was granted in part and denied in part. The trial court thoroughly considered each and every factor inherent in the magistrate's decision to award Denise sole custody of the minor children, and concurred with the magistrate's decision to terminate the parties' shared parenting plan. (May 4, 2017 Decision and Entry at 34.) The trial court found that Denise is better suited to serve as the residential parent and legal custodian of the children. Id. Roman timely appealed the trial court's May 4, 2017 decision and entry.

         II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR AND STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW

         {¶ 9} Roman Pallone has assigned 20 errors for our consideration:

[I.] The trial court erred in denying Roman's motions dated February 13, 2014 and April 22, 2014 with regard to Requests for Admission.
[II.] The trial court erred in its handling of Roman's April 22, 2014 Motion to Compel Discovery with regard to Interrogatories.
[III.] The trial court erred in its denial of Roman's Motion to Dismiss and in not enforcing the mediation requirement of the parties' 2006 Agreed Shared Parenting Plan.
[IV.] The trial court erred in its decision to appoint a new GAL when the original GAL was still assigned and available to continue.
[V] The trial court erred in denying Roman's Motion to Appoint an Attorney Advocate for the children.
[VI.] The trial court erred in finding that the guardian ad litem completed her investigation pursuant to the local rules and rules of superintendence.
[VII.] The trial court erred in its reliance upon the guardian ad litem's recitation of her investigation and interviews, as well as her opinion, in determining its decision.
[VIII.] The trial court erred in excluding from evidence two of Roman's voicemail recordings and an email.
[IX.] The trial court erred in not finding that Denise has continuously or willfully denied Roman parenting time.
[X.] The trial court erred in finding that the right of first refusal is vague and not in the best interest of the children.
[XI.] The trial court erred in finding no evidence to the amount of parenting time Appellant was denied under the ...

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.