Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-28-2022
Case Style:
AMANDA GROESCHEN VS. JEFF JOHNS
Case Number: C-210306
Judge: Candace C. Crouse
Court:
COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
On appeal from The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Defendant's Attorney: Jeff Johns, pro se.
Description:
Cincinnati, Ohio - Protection Order lawyer represented Petitioner-Appellee with obtaining a stalking protection order (“CSPO”).
Groeschen and Johns dated for several months, separating around
March 2020. On July 9, 2020, Groeschen filed a petition for a CSPO against Johns.
In it, Groeschen alleged that after their breakup, Johns caused her mental distress
and made her fear for her safety because of his prolonged and increasingly alarming
communication towards her. The magistrate granted an ex parte temporary CSPO on
the same day.
{¶3} After several continuances, the magistrate held a full evidentiary
hearing on April 15, 2021, and April 16, 2021. Following testimony from the parties
and Johns’s father, along with the introduction of voicemails, text messages, and
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
3
letters between the parties, the magistrate found by a preponderance of the evidence
that, “Mr. Johns’ conduct when taken as a whole caused Ms. Gro[e]schen mental
distress in that she reasonably believed and believes that Mr. Johns will cause her
physical harm.” The CSPO states that it is effective until July 8, 2024.
{¶4} On April 27, 2021, the trial judge approved and adopted the
magistrate’s order. On May 12, 2021, Johns filed this appeal.
Johns waived his arguments pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G)
{¶5} Pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G), a trial court’s denial or adoption of a
magistrate’s decision to issue a civil protection order is a final appealable order.
However, Civ.R. 65.1(G) also states that “a party must timely file objections to such
an order under division (F)(3)(d) of [Civ.R. 65.1] prior to filing an appeal.” “The
objections must be in writing and challenge ‘a court’s adoption, modification, or
rejection of a magistrate’s denial or granting of a protection order after a full
hearing.’ ” Hill v. Ferguson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210278, 2022-Ohio-13, ¶ 8,
quoting Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i).
{¶6} Recently in Hill, we held that a party who fails to file objections waives
any arguments challenging the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s civil
protection order. Id. at ¶ 12.
{¶7} While the CSPO did not advise the parties of the Civ.R. 65.1 obligation
to file objections prior to appeal, the magistrate advised the parties at the hearing,
both of whom were represented by counsel at the time, that, “[a]ny objection * * *
needs to filed in the appropriate time period.” However, the magistrate was not
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
4
required by rule to inform the parties about the need to object.1 See Daniels v.
Daniels, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 20CA3910, 2021-Ohio-2076, ¶ 15; Florenz v. Omalley,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28780, 2020-Ohio-4487, ¶ 14.
Outcome: Johns did not file objections pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1. Pursuant to Hill,
he cannot challenge the trial court’s decision to adopt the CSPO in this appeal. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: