Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Corliss v. Corliss
Citation: 2012 Ohio 3715Docket: 25098
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; August 17, 2012; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Neil M. Corliss, Jr. appeals an order that modified his parenting time with his ex-wife, Melissa D. Corliss. The court found that Mr. Corliss waived his right to contest the magistrate's decision by not filing objections or submitting a transcript of the hearing, leading to a presumption of regularity in the proceedings. The couple's divorce was finalized in April 2011, establishing a week-to-week parenting schedule for their two minor children, with specific guidelines for exchanges and holidays. Ms. Corliss later sought to change this schedule due to her relocation for employment, and the magistrate granted her request, adopting the Montgomery County Standard Order of Visitation. Mr. Corliss did not follow the appellate rules regarding his brief, lacking formal assignments of error; however, the court inferred his argument that the modification constituted an abuse of discretion and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, emphasizing that Mr. Corliss's failure to object to the magistrate's decision limited his grounds for appeal to plain error only. Plain error was not found in the proceedings before the magistrate due to Mr. Corliss's failure to file a transcript, which is his responsibility as the appellant per App.R. 9(B). Without a transcript, the alleged improprieties in the magistrate’s decision cannot be assessed, leading to a presumption of the validity of the lower court's proceedings. The magistrate’s decision regarding Ms. Corliss's move to the Troy area, prompted by employment changes, does not constitute plain error. Mr. Corliss did not overcome the presumption of regularity, thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and the order is upheld. Mr. Corliss’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the trial court's order is affirmed. Judges Donovan and Froelich concurred. Copies of the decision were mailed to the involved parties.