Trunk v. Coleman
| Docket Number | 112392 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 Ohio 244 |
| Parties | CHRISTINA ANN TRUNK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT M. COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Alexander R. Folk, for appellee.
Stafford Law Co., L.P.A., Joseph G. Stafford, Nicole A. Cruz and Kelley R. Tauring, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Robert Coleman ("Appellant") appeals the judgment entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which granted appellee, Christina Trunk's ("Appellee"), complaint for annulment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant filed an ex parte petition to establish the fact of marriage to Appellee in the Superior Court of California, Humboldt County, on September 23, 2021. The petition alleged that he and Appellee were married in two self-solemnizing wedding ceremonies on October 19, 2016. Appellant did not direct the Humboldt County Clerk of Court to serve Appellee with the petition. The court held a hearing on the petition on September 30, 2021. Appellee did not appear at the hearing. (Tr. 154.) The petition was granted ex parte, and Appellant submitted the judgment entry to the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH"). CDPH registered the court-ordered delayed marriage certificate on February 17, 2022.
{¶ 3} Appellee filed a complaint for annulment in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, on February 1, 2022. Appellee alleged that she never consented to marry Appellant, never obtained a marriage license, nor participated in a ceremony. Appellant responded with a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The matter proceeded to trial on December 13, 2022.
{¶ 4} Appellant testified that he initially did not know what date he and Appellee were married, but later recalled they were married on October 19, 2016, the day before his twin sister was murdered at exactly 9:47 p.m. Appellant proffered several exhibits, including text messages and photographs. However, none of the exhibits depicted a wedding ceremony nor referenced an actual wedding. (Tr. 158.)
{¶ 5} Appellee acknowledged that she was Appellant's on-and-off girlfriend between August 2016 and July 2021. It is undisputed that Appellee lived with Appellant in California from August 12, 2016, through October 19, 2016. Appellant's twin sister was attacked on October 20, 2016, and later died. Appellee traveled with Appellant to Tennessee, where his sister lived, for Appellant to obtain custody of his deceased sister's children. Appellee alleged that she volunteered on a farm in California between October and December 2016 before returning permanently to Ohio.
{¶ 6} In January 2017, Appellee moved in with her mother. She secured student loans and enrolled in massage therapy school. Appellee documented her marital status as "single" on her loan application. Appellant and Appellee both testified they filed their income taxes as unmarried individuals between 2016 and 2021.
{¶ 7} Appellant moved to Ohio in May 2017. He lived in a hotel for one week, then with Appellee and her mother for approximately one week, before purchasing a home in Columbia Station, Ohio. Appellant secured a mortgage loan and recorded the mortgage deed as an "unmarried individual" in June 2017. Appellee testified that she lived with Appellant from January 2018 until she ended the relationship and obtained an individual lease for an apartment in Middleburg Heights on July 4, 2021.
{¶ 8} Appellant elicited the following testimony from Appellee regarding her consent to marry him and knowledge of Appellant's filing of the petition for a delayed marriage certificate:
(Tr. 59.)
{¶ 9} Appellee had the following exchange with the court, as it relates to her consent to marry Appellant:
(Tr. 68, 69.)
{¶ 10} The trial court issued a judgment entry on January 10, 2023, granting Appellee's complaint for annulment. A nunc pro tunc judgment entry of annulment with findings of fact and conclusions of law was issued on January 11, 2023.
{¶ 11} During the pendency of the case, Appellant filed numerous motions for delay and harassment. Accordingly, the court deemed Appellant a vexatious litigator. The court ordered Appellant to seek leave of court before instituting legal proceedings in the court of claims, any court of common pleas, municipal court, or county court. Furthermore, the January 11, 2023 order required Appellant to obtain leave of court before instituting proceedings in the court of appeals under Ohio law. Appellant's initial appeal was dismissed when he failed to seek leave to appeal the trial court's order. Upon reconsideration, we granted Appellant leave to proceed. Appellant now appeals, assigning three assignments of error for review.
{¶ 12} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for continuance. We find Appellant's assignment of error disregards his purposeful conduct and other relevant factors the trial court considered when it denied his request for continuance. Consequently, Appellant's contention is without merit.
{¶ 13} The decision to grant a motion for an extension of time lies within the trial court's sound discretion and will be reversed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Univ. Hosp. Case Med. Ctr., 8th Dist Cuyahoga No. 90960, 2009-Ohio-2119, ¶ 5. See also Kinas v. Kinas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98965 2013-Ohio-3237, ¶ 28. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies the court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Stratton v. Stratton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107798, 2019-Ohio-3279, ¶6, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 14} A reviewing court should consider the length of the delay requested, whether prior continuances have been granted; inconvenience to the litigants, the court, and witnesses; whether the requested delay is legitimate rather than dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstances underlying the request; and any other relevant factors. Depompei v. Santabarbara, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101163, 2015-Ohio-18, ¶ 41, Rawlin Gravens Co., L.P.A., v. Jatsek Constr. Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100587, 2014-Ohio-1952, ¶ 22, citing State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67-68, 616 N.E.2d 186 (1981).
{¶ 15} Appellant argues that he attempted to obtain substitute counsel, but he could not find an attorney due to the issues involved in the case and the prohibition on continuances. However, the following highlights of the record reveal Appellant's actions contributed to the underlying circumstances that necessitated his request for a continuance.
{¶ 16} Appellant first filed a motion for an extension of time to answer the complaint on March 10, 2022, which was granted until April 11, 2022. On April 11, 2022, an attorney entered a notice of appearance, but instead of filing an answer, he filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, on May 9, 2022. Appellant was ordered to answer the complaint within fourteen days. On May 20, 2022, Appellant's attorney filed a motion to withdraw and motion for an extension of time to answer. Counsel's request was due, in part, to Appellant discharging him. (App. Brief May 20, 2022). Both motions were granted, and the pretrial was continued until June 6, 2022.
{¶ 17} Appellant filed an answer, pro se, on May 24, 2022, and a second motion to dismiss on July 11, 2022. The trial court denied Appellant's motion to dismiss and stated that no further continuances would be granted due to substitution of counsel. On September 23, 2022, a second attorney filed a notice of appearance for Appellant, and the court continued the trial date of November 16, 2022, to give Appellant's new counsel time to prepare for trial.
{¶ 18} The new trial date was December 13, 2022. Appellant's second attorney filed a motion to withdraw on October 7 2022, and a motion for continuance. On October 12, 2022, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw. The journal entry reflects that the trial court weighed the harm a continuance would...
To continue reading
Request your trial