ROBYN M. TATE Plaintiff-Appellee
BRUCE E. TATE Defendant and TATE FARMS COMPANY, LTD AND TATE FARMS, A PARTNERSHIP Defendants-Appellants
from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division,
Case No. 15DR019
Plaintiff-Appellee LON R. VINION
Defendants-Appellants GRANT A. MASON
Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Earle
E. Wise, Jr., J.
1} Defendants-Appellants, Tate Farms Company, Ltd. and Tate
Farms, a Partnership, appeal the February 13, 2017 judgment
entry denying their motion for sanctions and the March 30,
2017 decree of divorce of the Court of Common Pleas of Holmes
County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division. Plaintiff-Appellee
is Robyn M. Tate.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} On February 14, 1998, defendant, Bruce Tate, and appellee
were married. No children were born as issue of the marriage.
On March 10, 2015, appellee filed a complaint for divorce
against defendant, and also named appellants, two entities
defendant had interests in. The other individuals involved
with the entities were defendant's father, mother, and
brother. Appellants filed an amended answer on May 1, 2015,
asserting lack of jurisdiction over the person and the
3} On June 23, 2015, appellants filed a motion to dismiss
challenging the jurisdiction issue. The trial court took the
matter under advisement.
4} Hearings were held on September 19, 21, 22, 23, 29, and
October 10, 2016. At the conclusion of the September 29, 2016
hearing, appellants moved for a directed verdict. By judgment
entry filed October 11, 2016, the trial court granted the
motion and dismissed appellants from the case. Appellants
were aware of the trial court's ruling prior to the
October 10, 2016 hearing.
5} On October 28, 2016, appellants filed a motion for
sanctions followed by an affidavit detailing the attorney
6} On February 13, 2017, the trial court issued a statement
of the case, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. In a
separate judgment entry filed same date, the trial court
denied appellant's motion for sanctions. Appellants filed
7} On March 30, 2017, the trial court issued a decree of
divorce, attaching referenced Exhibits A and B, but not
8} On April 4, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
9} On April 7, 2017, appellants filed an amended notice of
appeal to incorporate the divorce decree.
10} On April 25, 2017, defendant filed with the trial court a
motion for a nunc pro tunc order to address the missing
Exhibit C. The trial court did not rule on this motion.
11} On May 15, 2017, defendant filed with this court a motion
to correct the record under App.R. 9(E), seeking a limited
remand to address the missing Exhibit C. By judgment entry
filed June 8, 2017, this court granted the motion and
remanded the matter to the trial court to address the missing
exhibit. On June 26, 2017, the trial court filed a nunc pro
tunc statement of the case, findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and decision, attaching the missing Exhibit C. The trial
court made substantive changes to its previous decision which
is the subject of separate appeals (App. Nos. 17CA13 and
12} This matter is now before this court for consideration of
the trial court's judgment entry filed February 13, 2017,
and the divorce decree filed March 30, 2017 with the added
Exhibit C. The pertinent parts of the decision and the
relevant facts will be addressed under each of the
corresponding assignments of error. Assignments of error are
13} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED TATE FARMS OF
ITS RIGHT TO APPEAL THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF ITS
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO R.C. § 2323.51 BY
VIRTUE OF THE 'HOLD ...