E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M. (2025-Ohio-2946): Guardian-Ad-Litem Fee Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable Under R.C. 2505.02(B)

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified a recurring procedural question in domestic-relations litigation: Is a trial-court order requiring the parties to pay outstanding guardian-ad-litem (GAL) fees in an ongoing divorce and custody action a “final, appealable order”? In E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M., Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2946, the Court unanimously (with Chief Justice Kennedy concurring in judgment only) held that such an interlocutory order is not final and therefore cannot be appealed until a final judgment disposes of all claims in the case.

The controversy arose after a protracted divorce proceeding in Cuyahoga County:

• Parties: Father (E.A.K.M.) and Mother (M.A.M.).
• Non-party Appellant: Peter S. Kirner, the court-appointed GAL, later permitted to intervene on appeal to defend his fee order.
• Issue: Whether the Eighth District Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the GAL-fee order while the divorce and custody matters remained unresolved.

II. Summary of the Judgment

Justice DeWine, writing for the Court, vacated the Eighth District’s judgment and restored the trial-court order, concluding:

1. An interlocutory order directing the payment of GAL fees in an active divorce/custody case does not fall within any statutory category of “final orders” under R.C. 2505.02.
2. Specifically, such an order is not final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) (an order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding) because:
   • It does not impact a “substantial right” the litigant is entitled to “enforce or protect,” and
   • Even if it did, delayed review after final judgment would still provide effective relief (e.g., reimbursement or reallocation of fees).
3. Accordingly, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and its merits decision regarding the allocation of fees was void.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (1993)
   Bell articulated the “effective remedy” test: a substantial right is affected only if, absent immediate review, the appellant will be denied meaningful relief later. E.A.K.M. anchors its analysis in this principle, concluding that reimbursement of GAL fees after a final decree remains effective.
2. Wilhelm-Kissinger v. Kissinger, 129 Ohio St.3d 90, 2011-Ohio-2317
   Held that denial of a motion to disqualify counsel in a divorce action is not a final, appealable order. The Court used the same categorical approach here: if the order type—GAL-fee directives—does not universally threaten substantial rights, it is non-final.
3. Thomasson v. Thomasson, 2018-Ohio-2417 (8th Dist.)
   Quoted by the appellate court below, but the Supreme Court re-emphasized that Thomasson’s “substantial right” language is limited by Bell’s need-for-immediate-relief requirement.
4. Federal Authority: Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) & Richardson-Merrell v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (1985)
   Cited to support a categorical, not ad hoc, view of finality and to warn against conflating merits errors with jurisdiction.
5. In re D.H., 2018-Ohio-17 & Gardner v. Ford, 2015-Ohio-4242
   Both reject the idea that litigation delay or cost alone transforms interlocutory orders into final ones.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Step 1 – Is the order issued in a “special proceeding”?
   Divorce actions are statutorily created and did not exist at common law; thus they are “special proceedings.” This preliminary element of R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) was undisputed.
2. Step 2 – Does the order involve a “substantial right”?
   Civ.R. 75(B)(2) allows but does not entitle a party to a GAL fee allocation. Because no rule, statute or constitutional provision guarantees a party freedom from interim fee orders—or creates a right to specific timing or source of payment—there is no enforceable “substantial right.”
3. Step 3 – Does immediate review protect that right?
   Even if a right were implicated, effective relief (fee reallocation, reimbursement, contempt sanctions, interest awards) can be granted once the trial court enters a final decree. Hence immediate review is unnecessary.
4. Categorical Approach Over “Unusual Circumstances.”
   The Eighth District erred by focusing on the “facts and circumstances” (four-year pendency) and the merits of jurisdiction over 2019 fees. Final-order status cannot hinge on case-specific equities; it must be determined by order type.

C. Potential Impact of the Decision

• Streamlining Domestic-Relations Appeals: Litigants must postpone attacks on interim GAL-fee orders until the final decree, reducing piecemeal appeals.
• Predictability for Trial Judges & GALs: Courts can confidently issue fee orders during litigation without fear of immediate appeal; GALs have assurance of enforceability pending final judgment.
• Financial Planning for Parties: Parties must budget for GAL fees during the case, knowing reimbursement claims, if any, will be addressed only after final disposition.
• Appellate Practice: The ruling re-emphasizes counsel’s duty to analyze R.C. 2505.02 categorically; filing premature appeals risks dismissal and wasted resources.
• Broader Finality Doctrine: The Court reaffirmed Ohio’s alignment with federal policy against piecemeal review, likely influencing future analyses of expert-fee orders, discovery sanctions, and other cost assessments.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Interlocutory Order

A trial-court ruling made before the final judgment that does not resolve every claim or party’s rights.

Final, Appealable Order

An order a party can—and must—appeal immediately; defined exhaustively in R.C. 2505.02.

R.C. 2505.02(B)(2)

One category of final orders: those that (i) occur in a special proceeding and (ii) affect a substantial right such that immediate appeal is necessary to protect it.

Substantial Right

A legal entitlement (constitutional, statutory, common-law, or procedural) that a person has authority to enforce or protect.

Guardian ad litem (GAL)

An individual (often an attorney) appointed to represent the best interests of a minor or incompetent party in litigation; may seek compensation taxed as costs.

Effective Relief

The notion that an appellate court can still grant meaningful remedy (e.g., reimbursement) after final judgment; if true, immediate appeal is unnecessary.

V. Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M. crystallizes a clear procedural rule: interim GAL-fee orders in divorce and custody cases are not immediately appealable. By rejecting a case-specific balancing test and reaffirming the categorical approach to final-order analysis, the Court has:

• Bolstered judicial efficiency by curbing piecemeal appeals;
• Provided trial courts and litigants a predictable roadmap for handling GAL compensation disputes;
• Re-aligned Ohio practice with the overarching policy—state and federal—against fragmentary appellate review.

Practitioners should treat GAL-fee challenges like most other interim cost or discovery orders: preserve objections, comply or seek stay relief in the trial court, and await the final decree before appealing. Failure to heed this rule risks jurisdictional dismissal and loss of appellate rights.