Mistysyn v. Lynch, 031819 OHCA9, 18CA011317

Docket Nº:18CA011317
Opinion Judge:JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.
Party Name:ALLEN MISTYSYN Appellant v. WENDY LYNCH Appellee
Attorney:APPEARANCES: JOHN S. HAYNES, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. ELIZABETH A. THOMARIOS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:CALLAHAN, P. J. SCHAFER, J. CONCUR.
Case Date:March 18, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

2019-Ohio-903

ALLEN MISTYSYN Appellant

v.

WENDY LYNCH Appellee

No. 18CA011317

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

March 18, 2019

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 14DU078515

APPEARANCES: JOHN S. HAYNES, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELIZABETH A. THOMARIOS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.

{¶1} Allen Mistysyn appeals a judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas that modified his child support obligation. For the following reasons, this Court reverses.

I.

{¶2} Mr. Mistysyn and Wendy Lynch divorced in March 2015 after 19 years of marriage. They have two children, one who was born in 2000 and the other in 2002. Mother retained the marital home, which was worth $360, 000, after buying out Father's interest in it. She also bought out his partial interest in a vacation home that she owned. The parties also divided approximately ten million dollars in assets they had acquired during the marriage. Father agreed to pay Mother $8, 000 a month in spousal support for 39 months and $1, 250 per child in child support.

{¶3} At the time of the divorce, Father earned a base salary of $350, 000. He could also earn stock options and bonuses depending on the profitability of his employer. In January 2017, he became the chief financial officer of the company. His base salary increased to $600, 000, and the amount of bonuses and stock options he could receive also increased. Following his promotion, Mother moved for modification of the child support order. Following a hearing to a magistrate, the magistrate found that there had been enough of a change in circumstances to reconsider the child support award. She increased Father's obligation to $10, 000 a month. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision. Father objected, but the court overruled his objections. Father has appealed the trial court's judgment, assigning four errors. We have rearranged and combined some of the assignments of error for ease of disposition.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT OF APRIL 9, 2018 IS NOT A FINAL APPEALABLE JUDGMENT.

{¶4} On April 9, 2018, the trial court entered a journal entry that denied Father's objections to the magistrate's decision. Although Father has appealed the entry, he argues in his first assignment of error that it was not final and appealable because it did not include language required under Civil Rule 53(D)(4)(e)(i).

{¶5} "In cases referred to a magistrate, the determination of appellate court jurisdiction is complicated * * *." Harkai v. Scherba Indus. Inc., 136 Ohio App.3d 211, 219 (9th Dist.2000). "[We] must differentiate between those requirements that affect appellate court jurisdiction, that is, entry of a judgment setting forth relief, and those that impose procedural requirements on the trial court, such as adoption of a magistrate's decision." Id. at 219-220. "In the first instance, the absence of a final order or judgment precludes appellate review. In the second instance, provided there has been a final order or judgment entered, the filing of a notice...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP