Norman v. Branco

[Cite as Norman v. Branco, 

.]




                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                         THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              SENECA COUNTY




MADISON A. NORMAN,
                                                        CASE NO. 13-24-24
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

RYAN M. BRANCO,                                         OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



                 Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court
                           Domestic Relations Division
                           Trial Court No. 23 CV 0256

                                     Appeal Dismissed

                           Date of Decision: March 10, 2025



APPEARANCES:

         John M. Kahler II for Appellant
Case No. 13-24-24




ZIMMERMAN, J.

      {¶1} Respondent-appellant, Ryan M. Branco (“Branco”), appeals the June

28, 2024 judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas overruling his

objections to the civil stalking protection order (“CSPO”) issued on December 12,

2023. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Branco’s appeal as moot.

      {¶2} On October 23, 2023, petitioner-appellee, Madison A. Norman

(“Norman”), filed a petition for an ex parte CSPO alleging that Branco sent text

messages, emails, and social media posts to harass her. An ex parte CSPO was

issued that same day. A full hearing on the matter was held on December 11, 2023.

Thereafter, on December 12, 2023, a CSPO was issued. Pursuant to its terms, the

CSPO was effective until June 30, 2024. Branco timely filed his objections to the

CSPO, which the trial court overruled on June 28, 2024.

      {¶3} On July 8, 2024, Branco filed his notice of appeal. He raises two

assignments of error for our review.

                           First Assignment of Error

      The Decision Of The Court Was Not Supported By Competent
      Credible Evidence As The Petitioner Failed To Prove The
      Elements For A Civil Stalking Protection Order.

                          Second Assignment of Error

      The Court Erred When It Questioned The Unrepresented
      Petitioner As On Direct, Thereby Ensuring To Elicit Sufficient


                                       -2-
Case No. 13-24-24


       Evidence To Support A Finding On Behalf Of The Unrepresented
       Petitioner.

       {¶4} Before we address Branco’s assignments of error, we sua sponte

consider whether the appeal is moot given that the CSPO expired on June 30, 2024.

On January 14, 2025, we issued a show-cause order asking Branco to explain why

the case should not be dismissed as moot because the CSPO had expired. Branco

failed to respond.

       {¶5} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue

judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 

,

citing Fortner v. Thomas, 

 (1970). “Under the mootness

doctrine, American courts will not decide cases in which there is no longer an actual

legal controversy between the parties.” 

, citing In re A.G., 2014-Ohio-

2597, ¶ 37. Thus, when an actual legal controversy ceases to exist, the court must

dismiss the case as moot. M.R. v. Niesen, 

.

       {¶6} In Cyran, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “in the absence of

demonstrated legal collateral consequences, the collateral-consequences exception

to the mootness doctrine does not apply to an expired domestic-violence civil

protection order.” (Emphasis added.) 

. The appellant in Cyran argued

that he faced possible collateral consequences from the expired civil protection

order that could impact his concealed-firearm permit, his credit report, as well as

his ability to obtain housing, drive certain vehicles, and obtain future employment.


                                         -3-
Case No. 13-24-24


Id. at ¶ 3. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected this argument. “Finding a reasonable

possibility that a collateral consequence may occur calls for speculation.” Id. at ¶

11. “Speculation is insufficient to establish a legally cognizable interest for which

a court can order relief using the collateral-consequences exception to the mootness

doctrine.” Id. Thus, an appellant must demonstrate that he or she has suffered legal

collateral consequences from the expired civil protection order for the collateral-

consequences exception to the mootness doctrine to apply. In the absence of such

demonstration, an appeal must be dismissed as moot.

       {¶7} The same rationale applies here. Branco has not demonstrated that he

has suffered any legal collateral consequences arising from the CSPO such that the

collateral-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine would apply.           As

previously stated, the CSPO expired on June 30, 2024. Since the CSPO is expired,

there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties. Furthermore, it

is the role of the courts to decide actual controversies by a judgment that can be

carried into effect. Cyran, 

.

       {¶8} For the foregoing reasons, Branco’s appeal is dismissed as moot.

                                                                  Appeal Dismissed

WALDICK, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.

/hls




                                         -4-