Connie Kouns, Fka Connie Pemberton v. Lawrence Pemberton, 92-LW-5710
Decision Date | 22 December 1992 |
Docket Number | 92 CA 07,92-LW-5710 |
Parties | CONNIE KOUNS, fka CONNIE PEMBERTON, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LAWRENCE PEMBERTON, Defendant-Appellant Case |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
David Reid Dillon, South Point, Ohio, for Appellant.
McCown & McCown, David McCown, Ironton, Ohio, for Appellee.
DECISION
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas granting a change of custody of Amie Pemberton (D.O.B. 2-10-80) and Adam Pemberton (D.O.B 8-16-81) (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the minor children") to their mother, Connie Kouns, fka Connie Pemberton, plaintiff below and appellee herein. The father, Lawrence Pemberton, defendant below and appellant herein, assigns the following error for our review:
Before addressing the merits of the error assigned for our review herein, we must first consider a threshold jurisdictional problem. Ohio law provides that the courts of appeals in this state have jurisdiction to review the final orders or judgments of inferior courts within their district. See generally Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2501.02. A final order or judgment is one which affects a substantial right and, in effect, determines the action. R.C. 2505.02. If an order is not final and appealable, then an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review the matter and it must be dismissed. In re Christian (Jul. 22, 1992), Athens App. No. 1507 unreported at 5. In the event that this jurisdictional issue is not raised by the parties involved with the appeal then we must raise it sua sponte. See In re Murray (1990), 52 Ohio St. 3d 155, 159-160 at fn. 2; Whitaker-Merrell v. Geupel Co. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 184, 186. With these principles in mind, we turn our attention to that portion of the judgment below which fails to determine child support and defers the issue for further consideration.
This court has previously determined that a judgment which defers the issue of child support for future determination is not a final appealable order for purposes of R.C. 2502.02. See Tismo v. Tismo (Aug. 27, 1990), Lawrence App. No. 1917 unreported at 8. Although the judgment in Tismo had been entered in the context of original divorce proceedings, this principle has been equally applied to actions outside of the initial one for divorce. See e.g. In re Berman (1990), 69 Ohio App. 3d 324, 329 ( ); also see In re McBride (Jul. 22, 1991), Athens App. No. 1473, unreported at 4-5 ( ); State ex rel. Scioto Co. Dept. Human Services v. Litreal (Jul. 21, 1991), Scioto App. No. 1940, unreported at 5 (paternity actions). We perceive of no logical reason why the same rule would not apply in the cause sub judice. The judgment entered by the court below clearly contemplated further action with respect to this case, and therefore, it did not fully determine the modification proceeding. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial