FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 16 NU 082277
J. GILL, Attorney at Law, for Appellants.
S. BARTOS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL Judge
Mother and Father appeal from the judgment of the Lorain
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
This Court reverses and remands the matter for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.
This appeal stems from a dissolution action wherein the trial
court granted Mother and Father a dissolution, and the
parties agreed to a shared parenting plan for their three
minor children. About one year later, D.V. filed a motion to
intervene and a motion for legal custody of S.D., who is one
of Mother and Father's minor children. By agreement of
the parties, D.V. was granted temporary custody of S.D. The
magistrate later held a hearing on D.V.'s motion for
legal custody. Mother and Father were not present at the
hearing. Following the hearing, the magistrate ordered D.V.
to prepare a judgment entry. D.V. submitted her proposed
judgment entry, which the magistrate signed, and the trial
court adopted. The judgment entry granted D.V. legal custody
of S.D., and ordered Mother and Father to pay child support
to D.V. Mother and Father now appeal, raising two assignments
of error for this Court's review.
OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANTS, BY
FAILING TO PREPARE AND FILE A MAGISTRATE'S DECISION THAT
COMPLIES WITH OHIO CIVIL RULE 53.
In their first assignment of error, Mother and Father argue
that the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate's
decision, which did not advise the parties of their right to
file objections. This Court agrees.
Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides, in part, that:
[a] magistrate's decision shall indicate conspicuously
that a party shall not assign as error on appeal the
court's adoption of any factual finding or legal
conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically
objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion as
required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).
is no dispute that the magistrate's decision failed to
advise the parties that they were required to file timely
objections under Rule 53(D)(3)(b) in order to properly
preserve issues for appellate review. When this occurs, a
reversal and remand is appropriate for the magistrate to
prepare a decision that complies with Rule 53. M.H. v.
J.H., 9th Dist. Medina No. 16CA0055- M, 2017-Ohio-8679,
¶ 12-14. Accordingly, Mother and Father's first
assignment of ...