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.
Leffel v. Nassar
Citation: 2019 Ohio 5292Docket: 17CA0080-M
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 22, 2019; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Jennifer M. Leffel appeals the October 19, 2017 judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, which adopted a magistrate's decision regarding parental rights, shared parenting, and child support for her and Michael Nassar's two minor children. The magistrate's decision established a shared parenting plan, found Ms. Leffel in contempt while not finding Mr. Nassar in contempt, and recommended attorney's fees for Mr. Nassar. Both parties were notified that they had fourteen days to file objections to the magistrate's findings, but neither did. Ms. Leffel's appeal includes five assignments of error: 1. The trial court allegedly erred in handling domestic violence evidence, ruling certain evidence as hearsay, and imposing a shared parenting plan instead of awarding sole custody to Mr. Nassar given the conflict between the parties. 2. The trial court purportedly abused its discretion by awarding Mr. Nassar $1,200 in attorney fees and court costs. 3. The trial court allegedly erred in denying Mr. Nassar's contempt motion for failing to pay child support for 36 out of 60 months. 4. The trial court reportedly erred in finding Ms. Leffel in contempt regarding supervised visitation due to a conflict of interest. 5. The trial court allegedly erred by allowing Ms. Leffel’s attorney to withdraw a motion for child support review on grounds of it being impossible. Under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), objections to the magistrate’s decision needed to be filed within fourteen days for them to be valid. Ms. Leffel did not file any objections, which affects her ability to contest the decision on appeal. Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) stipulates that parties cannot appeal a court's factual findings or legal conclusions unless they have objected to them as required. Failure to properly object forfeits the right to assign those issues as error on appeal. While a party may still argue plain error, the court will not conduct a plain-error analysis if the argument is not raised. In this case, Ms. Leffel did not assert a plain error argument and failed to preserve her issues for appellate review. Consequently, her assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment from the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. The court orders a special mandate to execute this judgment and instructs the Clerk to file-stamp this document as the journal entry of judgment, initiating the review period. Costs are taxed to the appellant.