[Cite as Morningstar v. Burns, 2013-Ohio-2631.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRYSTAL L. MORNINGSTAR, ET AL JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs-
Case No. 12-CA-106
RYAN P. BURNS
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, Case No. 11-PA-41
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 21, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
CRYSTAL L. MORNINGSTAR, PRO SE JODELLE M. D’ARNICO
218 North Baker Ave 7110 E. Livingston Ave
Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-106 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Crystal Morningstar appeals the September 4, 2012
Entry entered by the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, which approved and adopted the magistrate’s September 4, 2012 Decision as
order of the court. Defendant-appellee is Ryan Patrick Burns.1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶2} Appellant and Appellee are the biological parents of T.M. (dob 11/21/02).
The parties have never been married. Appellant filed a Complaint to Determine
Parentage and Support on February 14, 2011. The trial court ordered Appellee and the
minor child undergo genetic testing. The test results indicated there was a 99.99%
probability Appellee was T.M.’s father. Via Judgment Entry filed June 13, 2011, the trial
court established a parent/child relationship between Appellee and his son, and ordered
Appellee pay $500/month in child support.
{¶3} The parties entered into an Agreed Judgment Entry on July 11, 2011.
Appellant was designated the sole residential parent and legal custodian of T.M.
Appellee was granted parenting time, using a phase-in schedule.
{¶4} On January 25, 2012, Appellant filed a Verified Multi Branch Motion,
seeking a modification of the child support award, including relief from the portion of the
June 13, 2011 Judgment Entry which prevented her from seeking or the trial court
awarding retroactive child support. On July 18, 2012, Appellee filed a motion to modify
parenting time, asserting a change of circumstances warranted the modification.
1
Appellee has not filed a Brief in this matter.
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-106 3
{¶5} The magistrate conducted a hearing on the issues of modification of child
support and modification of parenting time. Via Decision filed September 4, 2012, the
magistrate found a change of circumstances warranted an increase in Appellee’s
parenting time. The magistrate also found a change of circumstances warranted a
reduction in Appellee’s child support obligation. Via Entry filed September 4, 2012, the
trial court approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Neither party filed
objections to the magistrate’s decision.
{¶6} Via Judgment Entry filed September 21, 2012, the trial court denied the
portion of Appellant’s Verified Multi Branch Motion seeking relief from the June 13, 2011
Judgment Entry.
{¶7} It is from the September 4, 2012 Entry, approving and adopting the
Magistrate’s Decision Appellant appeals.
{¶8} We begin by noting Appellant has failed to comply with App. R. 16.
{¶9} App. R. 16(A) provides:
{¶10} “The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in the
order indicated, all of the following:
{¶11} “(1) A table of contents, with page references.
{¶12} “(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other
authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
{¶13} “(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with
reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected.
{¶14} “(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the
assignments of error to which each issue relates.
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-106 4
{¶15} “(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case, the
course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
{¶16} “(6) A statement of the facts relevant to the assignments of error
presented for review, with appropriate references to the record * * *
{¶17} “(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect
to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the
contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which
appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a summary.
{¶18} “(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.”
{¶19} Appellant's brief does not satisfy the requirements of App. R. 16(A);
therefore, is noncompliant. Absent minimal compliance with App. R. 16(A), this Court
cannot reasonably respond to Appellant's claims, and may, in its discretion, disregard
those claims. See, Foster v. Board of Elections, 53 Ohio App.2d 213, 228, 373 N.E.2d
1274 (1977). Such deficiencies are tantamount to failure to file a brief. Although this
Court has the authority under App. R. 18(C) to dismiss an appeal for failure to file a
brief, we elect not to do so.
{¶20} Before addressing the merits of Appellant's appeal, we must discuss the
state of the record before this Court.
{¶21} Appellant failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the proceedings
before the magistrate.
{¶22} When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors
are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as
to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-106 5
lower court's proceedings, and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Lab., 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400
N.E.2d 384 (1980). Because Appellant has failed to provide this Court with those
portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of this appeal, i.e., the transcript of the
February 28, 2008 hearing, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below
and affirm, pursuant to the directive set forth above in Knapp, supra.
{¶23} Assuming, arguendo, a transcript of the proceeding before the magistrate
is not necessary for resolution of the appeal, we further note Appellant failed to object to
the magistrate's decision.
{¶24} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides:
{¶25} “Except for a claim of plain error, 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 has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by
Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).”
{¶26} Because Appellant failed to object to the magistrate's decision, we find
Appellant’s argument(s) to be waived.
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-106 6
{¶27} We affirm the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-106 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRYSTAL L. MORNINGSTAR, ET AL. :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
RYAN P. BURNS :
:
Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 12-CA-106
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, we affirm the judgment of
the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Costs to
Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin_____________________
W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER