Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Yates v. Rigby

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 732
• Docket Number: 25AP-601

• Judges: Edelstein

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.3K)

• PDF

Syllabus

APPELLATE REVIEW – DIVORCE: Because the transcript from the uncontested divorce hearing was not included in the record under App.R. 9, and in the absence of any apparent procedural error by the trial court or cognizable argument or legal authority supporting appellant's assignment of error, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm the trial court's judgment granting appellee a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility. Judgment affirmed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as Yates v. Rigby, 2026-Ohio-732.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Shaquille Yates, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 25AP-601
v. : (C.P.C. No. 24DR-3103)

Aja Rigby, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Defendant-Appellant. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on March 5, 2026

On brief: Aja Rigby, pro se. Argued: Aja Rigby.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
Division of Domestic Relations

EDELSTEIN, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Aja Rigby, appeals from the July 21, 2025 judgment
and decree of divorce of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic
Relations. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
{¶ 2} In 2017, Ms. Rigby married plaintiff-appellee, Shaquille Yates. One child was
born in 2014, prior to their marriage. Mr. Yates filed a complaint for divorce in October
2024 on the ground of incompatibility.
{¶ 3} On July 21, 2025, Mr. Yates, represented by counsel, and Ms. Rigby, pro se,
appeared before the trial court for a scheduled uncontested hearing. Following the hearing,
the trial court issued a judgment granting Mr. Yates a divorce on the grounds of
incompatibility and noting that matters regarding parenting were resolved in Franklin
No. 25AP-601 2

County Court of Common Pleas case No. 24DR-2049. The trial court also issued findings
of fact as to the division of personal and martial assets and liabilities.
{¶ 4} On July 23, 2025, Ms. Rigby filed a notice of appeal.1 She raises the following
sole assignment of error for our review:

THE TR[IA]L COURT [ERRED] AND ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN DISMISSING [MS. RIGBY’S] ACTION.

II. ANALYSIS
{¶ 5} As an initial matter, we note that Ms. Rigby’s brief does not comply with
App.R. 16(A)(3) and 16(A)(7). Under App.R. 12(A)(2), we are permitted to “disregard an
assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record
the error on which the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment
separately in the brief, as required under App.R. 16(A).” See also App.R. 12(A)(1)(b)
(requiring appellate courts to “[d]etermine the appeal on its merits on the assignments of
error set forth in the briefs under App.R. 16”).
{¶ 6} Ms. Rigby’s statement of her sole assignment of error is procedurally
deficient because she fails “to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of
error is based.” App.R. 12(A)(2). See also App.R. 16(A)(3). Appellants bear the burden of
demonstrating error on appeal by reference to the record of the proceedings below and
must designate specific rulings by the trial court challenged on appeal. See, e.g., Lee v. Ohio
Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2006-Ohio-6658, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.); In re Guardianship of
Williams, 2022-Ohio-617, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 7} Furthermore, Ms. Rigby does not adequately argue the assignment of error
in her brief. App.R. 16(A)(7) mandates that an appellant’s brief include “[a]n argument
containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error
presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the
authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.” Thus, Ms. Rigby’s

1 Ms. Rigby also filed objections to the trial court’s decree of divorce on July 23, 2025 in the trial court. On

August 14, 2025, the trial court issued an entry dismissing Ms. Rigby’s objections, noting that an objection
was procedurally inappropriate in this case and that she could challenge the decree of divorce through direct
appeal.
No. 25AP-601 3

brief is also deficient because she fails to provide any argument or legal authority to support
her sole assignment of error.
{¶ 8} Based on Ms. Rigby’s failure to comply with App.R. 16(A)(3) and (7), we could
disregard and summarily overrule her assignment of error. See App.R. 12(A)(2). See also
Angus v. Angus, 2015-Ohio-2538, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.), citing CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Asamoah,
2012-Ohio-4422, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.); Tonti v. Tonti, 2007-Ohio-2658, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.). “Many
times, however, appellate courts instead review the appealed judgment using the
appellants’ arguments in the interest of serving justice.” Angus at ¶ 10. That said, if we
“cannot understand an appellant’s arguments, [we] cannot grant relief.” Id., citing State v.
Dunlap, 2005-Ohio-6754, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). And, while we “will construe pro se filings
generously, appellate courts cannot construct legal arguments for an appellant.” Id., citing
Williams v. Barrick, 2008-Ohio-4592, ¶ 24 (10th Dist.), and Miller v. Johnson & Angelo,
2002-Ohio-3681, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 9} In her brief, Ms. Rigby contends the trial court dismissed her “case” “for
failure to prosecute” “without provision of notice.” (Appellant’s Brief at 2.) She also claims
she was unable “to provide any information about [her] divorce,” including “documentation
or proof” supporting her contention that Mr. Yates “owes [her] property and money.”
(Appellant’s Brief at 2.)
{¶ 10} On review of the record before us, we find no procedural deficiency or legal
error in the decree of divorce. Further, contrary to Ms. Rigby’s contention otherwise,
nothing in the record before us suggests Ms. Rigby’s “action” against Mr. Yates was
dismissed “for failure to prosecute.” (Appellant’s Brief at 2.) Ms. Rigby claims she “did not
receive any documentation for [her] divorce,” “[t]hey had the wrong address,” and she “was
not able to provide any information about [her] divorce” (Appellant’s Brief at 2), but the
trial court’s July 21, 2025 judgment explicitly states that both parties were present for the
uncontested hearing on Mr. Yates’s complaint for divorce.
{¶ 11} To the extent Ms. Rigby attempts to challenge events that took place at the
July 21, 2025 hearing, we lack the ability to review such matters because the transcript of
the July 21, 2025 hearing and any exhibits presented at that hearing are not in the record
before us.
No. 25AP-601 4

{¶ 12} “[A] bedrock principle of appellate practice in Ohio is that an appeals court is
limited to the record of the proceedings at trial.” Morgan v. Eads, 2004-Ohio-6110, ¶ 13.
For that reason, App.R. 9 requires an appellant to submit to the appellate court a transcript
of the trial court proceedings the appellant deems necessary for the appellate court’s review.
App.R. 9(B). See also Elhag v. Babiker, 2019-Ohio-3912, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 13} Nothing in the record before us indicates a transcript of the July 21, 2025
hearing was ever requested or that a transcript would not have been available to Ms. Rigby
had she requested it. And, even if no transcript is available, App.R. 9(C) and (D) provide
alternatives for an appellant. See Elhag at ¶ 7. If a transcript of the hearing was not
available, then Ms. Rigby had a duty to either prepare and file a statement of the evidence
under App.R. 9(C) or obtain and submit an agreed statement under App.R. 9(D). See, e.g.,
Khasawneh v. Aldamen, 2024-Ohio-937, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.), citing App.R. 9(B)(4). But she
did neither.
{¶ 14} Without a complete transcript of the proceedings, a statement of the evidence
pursuant to App.R. 9(C), or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D), an appellate
court has no alternative but to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of
the judgment in the trial court. See, e.g., Ostrander v. Parker-Fallis Insulation Co., Inc.,
29 Ohio St.2d 72, 74 (1972). “When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of
assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon
and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of
the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d
197, 199 (1980). See also J. Griffin Ricker Assocs., LLC v. Well, 2022-Ohio-1470, ¶ 18 (10th
Dist.) (noting “the lack of the transcript independently support[ed] overruling” appellant’s
assignment of error). Because the appellate record in this case does not include a transcript
of the July 21, 2025 hearing or an acceptable alternative under App.R. 9(C) or (D), we must
presume the regularity of the trial court’s proceedings in this case.
{¶ 15} As such, we have no basis to find the testimony and evidence presented at the
July 21, 2025 hearing were insufficient to support the trial court’s decree of divorce.
Indeed, without a transcript to review—and any substantive arguments from appellant—we
cannot conclude the trial court erred in granting Mr. Yates’s complaint for divorce. Further,
No. 25AP-601 5

in the absence of a hearing transcript, we have no basis to address any of the factual claims
Ms. Rigby makes in support of her sole assignment of error.
{¶ 16} For these reasons, we overrule Ms. Rigby’s sole assignment of error.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 17} Having overruled Ms. Rigby’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the July 21,
2025 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic
Relations, granting Mr. Yates a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility.

Judgment affirmed.

BOGGS, P.J. and DINGUS, J., concur.