Franchuk v. Franchuk
2016 Ohio 7563
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Thomas Franchuk (appellant) appealed the trial court’s denial of his post-divorce motion to modify child support after his son Matthew was emancipated.
- Prior judgments found Franchuk in contempt and entered arrearages with interest in 2008 and 2010; in 2012 the trial court terminated ongoing support upon emancipation and ordered monthly payments toward arrearages.
- Franchuk initially submitted a nonconforming letter requesting an emergency review; the magistrate ordered a properly formatted motion, which Franchuk later filed and the court heard.
- At the hearing Franchuk asked (a) retroactive recalculation of support back to 2001, (b) enforcement of an alleged agreement to waive interest on arrearages, and (c) an order requiring his ex-wife to pay orthodontic bills for their son.
- The magistrate denied relief on jurisdictional and res judicata grounds, discredited Franchuk’s claim of any enforceable agreement waiving interest, and found no basis to require the ex-wife to pay orthodontic bills; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Franchuk) | Defendant's Argument (Court/Wash. Cty.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of hearing because initial filing was a letter | Letter sufficed; law doesn’t require a specific form | Letter did not comply with local rule; magistrate properly ordered a conforming motion and Franchuk later filed one and was heard | No error: magistrate properly required compliance with local rule; no plain or prejudicial error |
| 2. CSEA contempt for failing to appear | CSEA was summoned and failed to appear; should be held in contempt per administrative rules | CSEA had no duty to appear absent subpoena or court order; cited administrative rules do not mandate presence | No contempt: no order/subpoena and rules cited do not require agency attendance |
| 3. Eliminate interest on arrearages (res judicata / periodic review) | Trial court failed to periodically review support and earlier proceeding produced an agreement relieving interest | Interest and arrearage judgments were reduced to judgment earlier; res judicata bars relitigation; no credible evidence of any binding agreement | No error: res judicata bars relitigation; court credited ex-wife’s testimony that no agreement existed |
| 4. Order ex-wife to pay orthodontic bills | Orthodontic bills were incurred while child was minor; ex-wife should be ordered to pay | No decree or statute obligating ex-wife; bills not shown with documentation; some expense paid by Franchuk after emancipation; res judicata/time-bar | No error: no supporting evidence, decree imposes no such duty, res judicata/standing defeat claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is disfavored and applies only in extremely rare circumstances)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (trial courts have broad discretion in domestic-relations matters and credibility determinations)
- In re H. V., 138 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained for family-law determinations)
- State ex rel. Muhammad v. State, 133 Ohio St.3d 508 (Ohio 2012) (party waives appellate claims not raised in timely objections to a magistrate under Civ.R. 53)