2018 Ohio 3688
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2001 Young obtained a child-support order against Norris; the order required parties to keep the child support agency informed of current addresses.
- FCCSEA conducted administrative reviews and in 2012 and 2017 prepared Administrative Adjustment Recommendations (AARs) recalculating support; service/address entries in the record showed prior Hilliard and later Dublin addresses for Norris.
- FCCSEA mailed the October 18, 2017 AAR by regular mail to Norris's last known Hilliard address; the notice explained a 14-day window to request an administrative hearing.
- Neither party requested an administrative or court hearing within the statutory period; the trial court entered an order on November 15, 2017 adopting FCCSEA’s AAR as a court order under R.C. 3119.65.
- Norris timely appealed, arguing (1) he was not properly served with the AAR and thus had no opportunity to object, and (2) the AAR contained calculation errors (adjustment to income for support paid for other children).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Norris properly served with the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation? | Young: FCCSEA followed procedures and mailed to last known address; absence of objection meant AAR became order. | Norris: He was not served with the Oct. 18, 2017 AAR at the correct address and thus lacked opportunity to object. | Court held service was proper under the rules/administrative code because FCCSEA mailed to Norris’s last known address and there was no evidence of a returned or undeliverable notice. |
| Are FCCSEA’s calculation errors (line 9 adjustment for support for other children) reviewable given no hearing was requested? | Young: Adoption of AAR was mandatory once no hearing was requested; trial court had to adopt FCCSEA’s calculation. | Norris: The computation was incorrect and should be corrected. | Court held the issue was moot because neither party requested a hearing and R.C. 3119.65 required the court to adopt the AAR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (general standard for appellate review of child-support matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Fraley v. Estate of Oeding, 138 Ohio St.3d 250 (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124 (pro se litigants held to same appellate rules and standards)