Citibank v. Thomson

2026-08-31

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's decisions were not adopted by the trial court and thus never became final, appealable orders, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.

Christopher Thomson appealed a municipal court decision in which Citibank sought to collect an unpaid credit card balance. The appellate court examined whether the magistrate's documents constituted final, appealable orders. The court determined that the magistrate had issued decisions rather than orders, since the documents were dispositive of the parties' claims and were not properly captioned as orders. Under procedural rules, magistrate decisions require adoption and entry of judgment by the trial court to become final and appealable.

Since the municipal court never adopted the magistrate's decisions or entered judgment on them, the documents remained preliminary recommendations rather than final, appealable orders. Without a final appealable order, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether magistrate documents constituted final, appealable orders or preliminary decisions
Whether the trial court properly adopted and entered judgment on magistrate decisions
Whether an appellate court has jurisdiction absent a final appealable order

Procedural posture

Christopher Thomson appealed from a magistrate's decision in Madison County Municipal Court granting Citibank's collection action on an unpaid credit card debt.

Authorities cited

136 Ohio App.3d 211

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

[Cite as Citibank v. Thomson, 2026-Ohio-3383.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

MADISON COUNTY

CITIBANK, N.A., :

CASE NO. CA2026-04-014

Appellee, :

OPINION AND

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY

(Accelerated Calendar)

CHRISTOPHER THOMSON, : 8/31/2026

Appellant. :

CIVIL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT

Case No. CVF2500701

Stenger & Stenger, P.C., and David B. Bokor, for appellee.

Christopher Thomson, pro se.

OPINION

SIEBERT, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Christopher Thomson, appeals an action from the Madison

County Municipal Court in which appellee, Citibank, N.A., sought to collect an unpaid

balance on a credit card debt.

Madison CA2026-04-014

{¶ 2} Upon consideration of the appeal and briefs before this court, and having

reviewed the record on appeal, the court notes that this appeal is taken from two

"decisions" signed only by a magistrate. We construe these documents as decisions

although incorrectly captioned as "entries."

{¶ 3} Under Civ.R. 53(D)(3), magistrates may issue decisions. However,

magistrates' decisions are not effective unless adopted by the court. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a).

The rule also permits magistrates to issue "orders" which, unlike decisions, do not require

judicial approval; but the court's approval is not required only where the order is necessary

to regulate the proceedings and is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party. Civ.R.

53(D)(2)(a)(i). The magistrate's decisions are clearly dispositive of this action as they

grant judgment to Citibank in a monetary sum with interest. Finally, the two documents

are not specifically identified as orders in the captions, which is required under Civ.R.

53(D)(2)(a)(ii). For these reasons, the documents cannot be construed as orders under

Civ.R. 53(D)(2) and the only alternative is to treat them as decisions.

{¶ 4} No objections to the magistrate's decisions were filed, and there is nothing

in the record indicating the municipal court adopted the magistrate's decisions as orders

of the court, entered judgment on them, or took any action otherwise authorized by Civ.R.

53(D)(4).

{¶ 5} Once a magistrate's decision has been filed, the trial court must act upon

the decision. Harkai v. Scherba Industries, Inc., 136 Ohio App.3d 211, 218 (2000 9th

Dist.). Unless the trial court adopts a magistrate's decision and enters judgment, the

magistrate's decision is merely an interlocutory recommendation and is not a final,

appealable order. Carpenter v. Johnson, 2001-Ohio-4867, ¶ 9 (2nd Dist.).

{¶ 6} In the absence of a final and appealable order, an appellate court has no

jurisdiction to review a matter and must dismiss the appeal. 902 Carp Loveland, L.L.C. v.

-2-Madison CA2026-04-014

Potts, 2026-Ohio-1313, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.). Since the decisions from which this appeal is

taken are not final appealable orders, this court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal is hereby

dismissed.

{¶ 7} Appeal dismissed.

PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

Upon consideration of the appeal and the briefs before this court, and the above Opinion, it is the order of this court that this appeal should be and hereby is dismissed because the order appealed from is not a final appealable order. This court is therefore without jurisdiction.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Madison County Municipal Court for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed to appellant.

/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge

-3-