Case Summaries: Civil Protection Orders - Magistrates
CPO Reversed and Remanded Because of Procedurally Improper Magistrate’s Decision—The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a DV CPO because the magistrate failed to include the requisite notice regarding objections to a magistrate’s decision and failed to include a designation in the caption that the document was a magistrate’s decision. The magistrate and judge had used the standard Supreme Court CPO form without adding the above language. Because of these violations of Civil Rule 53, appellant was not given a meaningful opportunity to object to the magistrate’s decision. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Cross v. Bryant, 2009-Ohio-5521 (11th Dist., Portage, 12/31/09).
Keywords: appeal
Date: 3/19/10
Respondent Not Prejudiced By Absence of Notice of Right To File Objections In Magistrates Decision
The respondent argued that the trial court erred in adopting the magistrates decision issuing a CPO because the magistrate failed to include the language required by Civil Rule 53(E)(2) notifying the appellant that he would waive any error that he did not contest through objection. However, trial courts will not be reversed for failing to comply with Rule 53 unless the alleged error has merit and has prejudiced the appellant. In analyzing whether the appellant has been prejudiced, the court must examine whether the violation prevented him from filing objections and whether the trial court was able to conduct an independent review of the magistrates decision. At no time has the appellant asserted that he was unaware of the filing deadline for objections. Further, the magistrates opinion included two pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the trial court was given the opportunity to independently review these findings. The magistrates error, therefore, in failing to include the notice language of Rule 53(E)(2), did not prejudice the appellant. Therefore, the trial courts issuance of the CPO was affirmed. Zaryki v. Breencourt, C.A. No. 22161, 2005-Ohio-1460 (9th Dist., Summit, 3/30/2005).
Keywords:
Date: 8/22/2005
