Sotomayer v. Safi

[Cite as Sotomayer v. Safi, 2026-Ohio-3854.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) ANGELIQUE SOTOMAYOR fka C.A. No. 25AP0059 TABITHA COSTA Appellant APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT v. ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS YOUSEF SAFI COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2022 DR-A-000327 Appellee DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 28, 2026 HENSAL, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Angelique Sotomayor, formerly known as Tabitha Costa, appeals a judgment entry of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that dismissed Yousef Safi’s motion to modify the trial court’s allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. I. {¶2} The parties divorced in 2022. They have one minor child. In 2024, Father moved to modify the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities to make him the sole legal and residential custodian of the child. Mother moved to dismiss the motion, arguing that Father had not complied with Revised Code Section 3127.23(A) because he did not file a parenting proceeding affidavit. A magistrate issued a decision that determined that Mother was correct, that Father’s motion should be dismissed, and that any child support funds being held by the county child support enforcement agency should be returned to Father. The trial court subsequently  2 entered a judgment entry that dismissed Father’s motion to modify and ordered any child support funds held in escrow to be released to Father. Mother has appealed, assigning as error that the trial court lacked authority to disburse the child support funds. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT FUNDS AFTER DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING PROCEEDING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY ENTERING SUBSTANTIVE FINANCIAL ORDERS WITHIN A DISMISSED ACTION. {¶3} Mother argues that the trial court did not have authority to impound or disburse Father’s child support payments during the pendency of his motion because the court did not have jurisdiction. We note that Father’s motion was initially considered by a magistrate, who determined that the motion should be dismissed and any child support funds held in escrow should be returned to Father. Under Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(i), parties have 14 days to file written objections to a magistrate’s decision. “Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion [of a magistrate] . . . unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). {¶4} The magistrate’s decision advised the parties that they were required to object under Rule 53(D)(3)(b) before they could “assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion . . . .” Mother, however, did not file any objections to the magistrate’s decision. She also has not argued plain error, and we decline to develop such an argument for her. Goff v. Hobbs, 2023-Ohio-3931, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.). Upon review of the record, we conclude that we  3 are unable to review the merits of Mother’s assignment of error because she did not comply with Rule 53(D)(3)(b). Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. III. {¶5} Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant. JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT  4 SUTTON, J. FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCUR. APPEARANCES: JESSICA A. L. CAMARGO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. STEPHANIE ANDERSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellee. BETHANY SHERRIEB, Guardian ad Litem.