Kenney v. Carroll, 2018 Ohio 1882

Heidi Carroll (Mother) and Robert Kenney (Father) divorced; Father was ordered to pay child support, later modified by post-decree proceedings.
Magistrate decision (Oct. 22, 2013) adopted by court increased Father’s support to $1,531.62/month effective Jan. 1, 2012; later recalculated by the trial court to $1,003.26/month in a Nov. 5, 2015 entry.
Mother appealed; this Court largely affirmed but vacated the recalculation to the extent the trial court used a $150,000 income cap and remanded for recalculation consistent with the opinion.
On remand the trial court issued a May 3, 2017 “nunc pro tunc” entry that (1) characterized the appellate ruling incorrectly and (2) added substantial new worksheets, legal analysis (including R.C. 3119.04(B)), and stated it was making “substantive changes” that related back to Nov. 5, 2015.
Mother appealed the May 3, 2017 entry, arguing the court improperly used a nunc pro tunc entry to make substantive changes and failed to follow the appellate mandate to recalculate without the $150,000 cap.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding the May 3, 2017 entry was an improper substantive nunc pro tunc and remanded with instructions to vacate that entry and recalculate child support per the prior decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carroll)	Defendant's Argument (Kenney)	Held
Whether the trial court properly used a nunc pro tunc entry to make substantive changes to its Nov. 5, 2015 judgment	Trial court improperly used nunc pro tunc to make substantive changes and should have held a hearing or entered a new judgment	Labeling was erroneous but harmless because the court reached the same correct result	Reversed: nunc pro tunc may only correct clerical errors; here the court made substantive changes so the entry was invalid
Whether the trial court complied with the appellate mandate to recalculate child support without using a $150,000 income cap	Trial court failed to follow the mandate and improperly applied or reasserted the $150,000 limit	Trial court’s recalculation was substantively correct despite procedural label	Moot (not reached) because the nunc pro tunc entry was invalid; remand required to recalculate consistent with prior appellate decision
Whether the trial court abused discretion by declining to set child support as recalculated on remand for 2012–2013 and forward	Trial court abused discretion by refusing recalculation and imposing a cap without agreement	Father contended trial court’s position produced correct result; any labeling error was harmless	Moot (not reached) due to first issue’s disposition

State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (nunc pro tunc orders limited to correcting clerical/mathematical errors; not for substantive changes)
State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (1995) (nunc pro tunc entries may make the record speak the truth but cannot alter what the court actually decided)