A person subject to a civil stalking protection order must first file objections with the trial court before challenging alleged errors on appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

The Supreme Court affirmed, with modification, the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ judgment concerning a civil stalking protection order requiring a man identified as “S.P.” to stay away from a woman identified as “A.A.” However, the Court was split on its reasoning.

A Court majority found the Tenth District wrongly stated it did not have jurisdiction to consider S.P.'s appeal. The Court clarified that the appeals court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, but because S.P. did not first file objections in the trial court, he forfeited appellate review of alleged errors that could have been raised through objections.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Megan E. Shanahan explained that the Court’s decision resolved a conflict among Ohio appellate courts on whether the merits of an appeal of a civil stalking order could be considered if the subject of the order skipped the step of objecting in the trial court.

Justice Shanahan explained the procedures for issuing protection orders and challenging them are governed by Rule 65.1 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. She noted that under Rule 65.1(G), a party who fails to file an objection with the trial court “forfeits appellate review of alleged errors that could have been raised by objection.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Daniel R. Hawkins joined Justice Shanahan’s opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote that the magistrate issuing the civil stalking protection order used a standard court form that did not clearly indicate that S.P. had to file objections with the trial court to preserve his arguments on appeal. She noted S.P. pursued his appeal “pro se” and did not have an attorney. She wrote that courts should make it clear in their orders that objections must be raised before appealing, and standard forms should “include a conspicuous notice regarding the potential consequences of a party’s failure to file objections.”

“In my view, courts should ensure that pro se litigants such as appellant, S.P., can more easily understand the consequences of failing to file such objections,” she wrote.

Chief Justice Kennedy also joined Justice Brunner’s concurrence.

Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority. He wrote that Rule 65.1, by its plain language and when read in context with the entire rule, makes it clear that an appeals court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a civil stalking protection order unless the person has filed objections with the trial court.

The majority’s rule requires the appeals court to proceed with the appeal all the while knowing it is powerless to do anything other than affirm the trial court’s issuance of the order, he stated. Justice Fischer wrote a dismissal of the appeal for failing to comply with the rule “would prevent any futile prolonging of the resolution of these civil-protection-order cases.”

Stalking Order Appealed
In 2023, A.A. sought a civil stalking protection order against S.P. in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. The matter was directed to a magistrate who conducted a hearing. The magistrate granted the protection order and issued a written decision.

The trial judge overseeing the magistrate adopted the decision and issued a civil stalking protection order under Rule 65.1. The rule requires a party to timely file objections to the trial court’s order before filing an appeal.

S.P. did not object but instead filed an appeal with the Tenth District. The Tenth District dismissed S.P.’s appeal, concluding it did not have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s judgment because S.P. did not comply with the civil rules.

The Tenth District indicated its decision conflicted with rulings from other appellate courts.

S.P. appealed the Tenth District’s decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider his case and resolve the conflict among the appellate districts.

Supreme Court Analyzed Appeal Requirements
Justice Shanahan explained that civil protection order proceedings referred to magistrates are governed by Rule 65.1(F). It states that after a magistrate conducts a full hearing on the order request, a trial court can adopt, modify, or reject the magistrate’s ruling.

The rule indicates that the trial court’s decision takes effect immediately and constitutes a final appealable order. Rule 65.1(G) states that “a party must timely file objections … prior to filing an appeal.”

The opinion noted that under the Ohio Constitution, courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review final orders of the courts below them. Because Rule 65.1(G) states the decision to issue a protection order is a final order, the appeals court had jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

However, possessing jurisdiction over an appeal does not guarantee that the appeals court can consider alleged errors made by the trial court in issuing the protection order, the Court stated.

The rules require objections to be filed with the trial court. The filing of objections stays the running of the time to file an appeal, the opinion explained. This process affords the trial court an opportunity to examine any errors made by the magistrate or trial court before the matter is appealed, the opinion noted.

Failure to file the objections in the trial court resulted in S.P. losing his right to raise them on appeal, the Court ruled.

S.P. argued the trial court’s decision did not adequately notify him that he had to file objections first to preserve his arguments for appeal. He argued the Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled that an appeals court could consider an appeal of a protection order even if objections were not filed with the trial court. The Eighth District ruled that if the opposing party did not raise the failure to file objections as a procedural defect, then the appellate court could consider the alleged errors.

The Supreme Court rejected the Eighth District’s reasoning. It stated Rule 65.1(G) “expressly requires a party to timely file objections before filing an appeal.”
S.P. also argued that the appeals court could review the alleged errors under the plain-error doctrine. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, explaining that Rule 65.1 does not authorize plain-error review as a substitute for objections that could have been filed with the trial court.

The Court affirmed the Tenth District’s judgment but modified it to affirm the trial court’s judgment, explaining that although the appeals court had jurisdiction, S.P. failed to preserve his right to challenge the alleged trial-court errors because he did not comply with Rule 65.1(G)’s objection requirement.

2025-1374 and 2025-1563. A.A. v. S.P., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-4205.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.