2021 Ohio 1548
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Stephen and Michele divorced in 2000; they had one child (B.B., born Jan. 2000). The trial court orally ordered child support of $338.98/month "plus administrative fees," but the written decree stated $338.98 "including poundage."
- The Huron County CSEA filed a termination investigation in Feb. 2018, later amending it to continue support through the child’s 19th birthday; CSEA calculated significant overpayments because collections had continued at a higher prior rate.
- An administrative termination hearing was held; on Aug. 9, 2018 the agency concluded support and medical provision should terminate on B.B.’s 19th birthday. The decision included a 30‑day right to seek court review under R.C. 3119.91–.92.
- Michele did not file the required motion in the divorce case within 30 days; she filed a notice of appeal in a new civil case before the administrative decision became final. The administrative decision became final by operation of R.C. 3119.91–.92.
- The magistrate and trial court adopted the administrative decision, entered a nunc pro tunc correction to reflect the oral 2000 order ("plus administrative fees"), denied Michele’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion (insufficient showing of excusable neglect), and Michele’s appeals (H-19-015 and H-20-010) were ultimately affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Michele) | Defendant's Argument (Stephen / CSEA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child support and medical support should continue past the child’s 19th birthday while the child remained in high school | Support should continue so long as child is full‑time in accredited high school; divorce decree’s language controls | R.C. 3119.86(B) bars court‑ordered support beyond the 19th birthday and Michele failed to timely seek judicial review under R.C. 3119.91–.92 | Michele failed to follow statutory review procedure; administrative decision became final; court did not reach merits and affirmed termination |
| Whether obligor’s overpayment credit is barred by laches/estoppel where obligor did not contest payments for years | Overpayment credit should be barred by laches/estoppel; Michele relied on payments | Stephen/CSEA say calculation is correct and Michele did not timely object to administrative calculation | Michele’s procedural default under R.C. 3119.91–.92 precluded merits review; court affirmed the overpayment finding |
| Whether the court improperly used a nunc pro tunc entry to change the child support amount (substantive vs clerical) | The nunc pro tunc altered substance of the decree to appellant’s prejudice | Court says the written entry was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement; nunc pro tunc corrects clerical discrepancy to reflect what was actually ordered | Nunc pro tunc was proper to reflect the oral December 5, 2000 order ("plus administrative fees") — assignment denied |
| Whether procedural defects (missing Civ.R. 53 notice) or counsel’s health justified relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) | Magistrate decision lacked Civ.R. 53 notice so objections time should be excused; counsel’s health issues excuse failure to file transcripts (excusable neglect) | Trial court judgment adopting the magistrate decision did include the Civ.R. 53 notice; Michele’s affidavit lacked dates/details of counsel’s illness; attorney neglect is imputed | Absence of notice in the magistrate’s written decision was harmless (trial court entry included notice); Civ.R. 60(B) denied for insufficient evidentiary detail to establish excusable neglect; appeals affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) (plain‑error doctrine in civil cases is narrowly and rarely applied)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 665 N.E.2d 1102 (1996) (definition and limits of excusable neglect)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976) (three‑part test for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988) (requirement to present surrounding facts/circumstances when claiming excusable neglect)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 140 Ohio St.3d 23, 14 N.E.3d 1003 (2014) (higher burden to show excusable neglect when represented by counsel)