[Cite as Napier v. Sparks, 2013-Ohio-4500.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
TERESA NAPIER, : APPEAL NO. C-130084
TRIAL NO. F89-1111z
Plaintiff, :
O P I N I O N.
and :
HAMILTON COUNTY CHILD :
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
:
Plaintiff-Appellant,
:
vs.
:
DWAYNE SPARKS,
:
Defendant-Appellee.
:
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 11, 2013
Janice H. Barr, for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Dwayne Sparks, pro se.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
H ILDEBRANDT , Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant the Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement
Agency (“the CSEA”) appeals the trial court’s judgment, which “reject[ed] the
magistrate’s decision and remand[ed] it for findings of fact and conclusions of law
based on an accurate computation of child support arrearages.” Because we
determine that we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we dismiss it.
{¶2} In 1989, defendant-appellee Dwayne Sparks was ordered to pay child
support in the amount of $86.67 per month for his daughter, Katrina Napier. In
1995, he was held in contempt for failure to pay child support and the court ordered
him to pay $43.33 a month on the arrearage (“the arrears order”). In June 2006, the
juvenile court terminated the child-support order because Katrina had graduated
from high school, and set the arrears order at $130 per month. In 2011, Sparks
moved to modify the arrears order based on his assertion that his only income was
his social security benefits, and the fact that he was supporting another child that
lived with him. The magistrate denied the motion.
{¶3} Sparks filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, which the trial
court sustained. The trial court rejected the magistrate’s decision, and remanded the
cause for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically, the trial court
indicated, among other things, that the record was unclear as to how the amount of
the arrearage was determined and whether Sparks was receiving, as part of his social
security benefits, Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) or Social Security Disability
Insurance Income. The court noted that the arrearage could not be garnished from
SSI benefits.
{¶4} The CSEA now appeals bringing forth a single assignment of error,
arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the magistrate’s decision
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
and remanding the cause for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Unfortunately,
we do not reach this issue as we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
{¶5} Before this court can exercise jurisdiction over an appeal, an order of
a lower court must be a final, appealable order and meet the requirements of R.C.
2505.02. Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 547 N.E.2d 64
(1989). If the order being challenged is not final, then the court must dismiss the
appeal. See General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 540
N.E.2d 266 (1989). “A magistrate’s decision that has not been adopted or modified
by the trial court is not a final order.” Roberts v. Skaggs, 176 Ohio App.3d 251,
2008-Ohio-1954, 891 N.E.2d 827, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.). Instead, a magistrate’s decision
remains interlocutory until the trial court enters a judgment that determines all the
claims for relief in the action or determines that there is not just reason for delay.
See Yantek v. Coach Builders Ltd., Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060601, 2007-
Ohio-5126, ¶ 14.
{¶6} Here, the trial court did not adopt or modify the magistrate’s decision.
Instead, the juvenile court determined that a final judgment could not be reached
based on the record, and remanded the cause to the magistrate to issue findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Because the magistrate’s decision was neither adopted
nor modified by the trial court, it is not a final appealable order. Thus, we hereby
dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
H ENDON , P.J., and C UNNINGHAM , J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
3