The Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s decision stemming from complex post-divorce disputes, largely dismissing the appeal filed by Natalie Schaible nka Slater (Appellant) because she failed to follow proper appellate rules when challenging several key rulings. The case involved disagreements over child support overpayments, contempt findings, and the garnishment of retirement accounts.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment and denied a request by the ex-husband, Adam Allen Schaible (Appellee), for attorney fees, concluding that while the appeal was unsuccessful, it was not entirely frivolous.
The Core Dispute and Magistrate’s Findings
The appeal centered on the April 14, 2025, decision by the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which denied Ms. Slater’s motion to extend the time she had to object to a Magistrate’s Decision issued on March 21, 2025.
That earlier Magistrate’s Decision addressed several contentious issues arising from the couple’s 2020 divorce and subsequent disputes over their child, AJ. Key findings from the magistrate included:
1. Denial of Contempt Against Adam: The magistrate declined to find Mr. Schaible in contempt for allegedly failing to pay child support after October 2023. The magistrate noted that while the shared parenting plan required Adam to pay support, an Amended Decision journalized in October 2023 actually flipped the obligation, making Natalie the obligor effective April 2023. Adam stopped paying in October 2023, resulting in an $8,624.53 overpayment by him.
2. Contempt Against Natalie: Natalie was found in contempt for interfering with therapy appointments and for failing to pay previously ordered attorney fees and sanctions.
3. Child Support Repayment Order: Crucially, the magistrate ordered that Adam’s $8,624.53 child support overpayment be transferred to Natalie’s support order as an arrearage, to be paid back to Adam at a rate of $80 per month, in addition to her current support obligation.
After the Magistrate’s Decision was served on March 21, 2025, neither party filed timely objections. The domestic relations court formally adopted the decision on April 9, 2025, making it the final order.
Procedural Hurdles Block Most of the Appeal
Ms. Slater’s primary issue on appeal was her attempt to challenge the denial of her motion to extend the deadline to object to the March 21st Magistrate’s Decision. However, the appellate court found itself severely limited by procedural rules when addressing her three assignments of error.
Assignments of Error 2 and 3 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
The court quickly dismissed Natalie’s second and third assignments of error due to a failure to comply with the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure (App.R. 3(D) and 4(A)).
In her second error, Natalie challenged the underlying September 23, 2024, child support order, claiming the court failed to consider relevant factors. The appellate court noted that Natalie filed her appeal on May 13, 2025, specifically targeting the *denial of the motion to extend time* (the April 14 entry). The September 2024 order was issued months earlier, and the time to appeal that specific order had long passed. Furthermore, the court pointed out that this issue was effectively already reviewed in a previous appeal (*Schaible III*), invoking the doctrine of *res judicata*.
Similarly, the third assignment of error challenged garnishment orders regarding her Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) from March and June 2025. Since these orders were not specified in her May 13 notice of appeal, and the June order was issued *after* the notice of appeal was filed, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review these matters.
First Assignment of Error Limited by Failure to Object Below
Natalie’s first assignment of error argued that the trial court erred by not finding Adam in contempt for stopping child support payments in October 2023.
The appellate court determined that the appeal regarding this contempt finding was timely because April 14, 2025—the date she was served with the denial of her motion to extend objections—was the first time she received official notice that the court had adopted the Magistrate’s Decision rejecting the contempt motion.
However, the review of the merits was severely hampered by Civil Rule 53(D)(3). This rule requires parties to file specific, written objections to a magistrate’s decision in the trial court to preserve the right to appeal that issue. Because Natalie failed to file any objections to the March 21, 2025, Magistrate Decision regarding the contempt finding, she generally waived the right to appeal that finding, except under a standard of “plain error.”
The court found that denying contempt against Adam did not rise to the level of plain error. The court noted that the magistrate had conducted a full hearing, and the record showed Adam had a significant overpayment of child support at the time. Therefore, the first assignment of error was overruled.
Attorney Fees Denied
Mr. Schaible filed a motion requesting the appellate court award him attorney fees, arguing Natalie’s appeal was frivolous under Local Rule 25(A). The court acknowledged that Natalie’s appeal was unsuccessful, but concluded that it presented a “reasonable question for review” and was not “wholly frivolous.” Consequently, Adam’s motion for attorney fees was denied.
The judgment of the domestic relations court was affirmed in its entirety, with costs assigned to the appellant, Natalie Slater.