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.

Hassinger v. Hassinger

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Ashland

May 11, 2018

TARA HASSINGER Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RYAN C. HASSINGER Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 15-DIV-032

          For Plaintiff-Appellee: MATTHEW J. MALONE

          For Defendant-Appellant: RYAN C. HASSINGER, PRO SE

          JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          DELANEY, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Ryan C. Hassinger appeals the June 22, 2017 judgment entry of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2} Defendant-Appellant Ryan C. Hassinger and Plaintiff-Appellee Tara Hassinger were married on February 27, 2009 and separated on August 1, 2009. Two children were born of the marriage, R.H. born June 29, 2007, and C.H. born November 30, 2008. On February 25, 2015, Wife filed a complaint for divorce.

         {¶3} The parties reached an agreement as to all issues except the care and disposition of the children and child support. A hearing before a magistrate was held on January 6, 2016. Husband represented himself at the hearing. By decision filed February 1, 2016, the magistrate named Wife residential parent and legal custodian of the children, and ordered Husband to pay child support in the amount of $361.25 per month.

         {¶4} Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision. He simultaneously filed a motion requesting permission from the trial court to file alternative media to review the evidence because he could not afford a transcript of the magistrate's hearing. On February 25, 2016, the trial court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. The trial court ordered the audio recording of the magistrate's hearing be provided to Husband, but Husband was required by Civ.R. 53(D) to file a written transcript to support his objections to the magistrate's decision. By separate judgment entry on February 25, 2016, the trial court ordered the hearing transcript be prepared and made available to Husband, but Husband was required to pay a $600.00 deposit to obtain the transcript. Husband did not provide the trial court with a transcript of the magistrate's hearing. By judgment entry filed March 22, 2016, the trial court reviewed the magistrate's findings, found them to be sufficient to support the conclusions of law, denied the objections, and adopted the magistrate's decision. The trial court ordered Wife to prepare the decree of divorce and submit the decree to the trial court.

         {¶5} Husband appealed the March 22, 2016 judgment entry. In Hassinger v. Hassinger, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 16-COA-009, 2017-Ohio-2962, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court ordered Wife to prepare a final decree of divorce conforming to the magistrate's decision and submit the decree to the trial court, which was not done at the time of the appeal. We found the March 22, 2016 judgment entry was "simply prefatory to the issuance of a final order." Id. at ¶ 16 citing Huffman v. Huffman, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-130, 2016-Ohio-62, ¶ 19; Beck v. Beck, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-031, 2016-Ohio-3012, ¶ 19.

         {¶6} The Decree of Divorce was filed on June 22, 2017. It is from this judgment Husband now appeals.

         ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         {¶7} Husband raises three Assignments of Error:

         {¶8} "I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT DIVESTED THE APPELLANTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PARENT HIS CHILDREN WITH THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD STANDARD, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

         {¶9} "II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT IMPEDED THE APPELLANT IN PREPARING AND LITIGATING HIS CASE, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES ...


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.