Bodell v. BrownBodell v. Brown
Gary S. Okin
Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
John D. Zoller
Zoller & Biacsi Co., L.P.A.
3611 Prospect Avenue, East
Cleveland, OH 44115
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, John H. Bodell (“Husband”), appeals from the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision, as modified.1 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} On August 10, 2004, the marriage of John H. Bodell and Patricia M. Brown (“Wife”) was terminated by an agreed judgment entry of divorce. The entry provided for the support of three children in the amount of $1,200 per month at $400 per child, per month. As of September 2012, two children became emancipated, leaving one child subject to child support. Thereafter, Wife requested a child support adjustment through the Cuyahoga Job and Family Services, Office of Child Support Services (“CJFS-OCSS”) (f.k.a. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency).
{¶3} CJFS-OCSS reviewed the court child support order and recommended to the parties that the new child support payments Husband was required to pay Wife were $1,929.06 per month when private health insurance is provided, and $1,936.06 plus $82 per month cash medical support when private health insurance is not provided. In its recommendation, CJFS-OCSS determined Husband’s income to be $235,000 and Wife’s income to be $18,250. Prior to the agency issuing its recommendation, however, Wife filed a motion to modify child support. Thereafter, Husband filed a request for a court hearing. And on December 31, 2013, the magistrate conducted a hearing on Wife’s motion and Husband’s request for a hearing.
{¶4} On May 1, 2014, the magistrate issued his decision. In his decision, the magistrate made certain findings concerning the parties’ incomes for purposes of calculating child support.
[Husband’s] income for 2010 was $219, 348; his income for 2011 was $235,000; and his income for 2012 was $413, 486. The three year average is $289,278, which is less than his income for 2012. Therefore, the magistrate concludes that for purposes of calculating child support, [Husband’s] income should be $289,278.
[Wife’s] gross annual employment income of $50,700 derived from three employers. She has rental income of $10,879, and income from dividends and interest in the amount of $3,523. Therefore, the magistrate concludes that [Wife’s] income for the purposes of calculating child support should be $65,102.
{¶5} The magistrate further concluded that because the combined gross income of both parents is greater than $150,000 per year, under
[a]fter considering the needs and the standard of living of the children who are the subject of this child support order and of the parents, the court finds that child
support as calculated would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the children, the [Husband], or the [Wife] for the following reasons: PARTIES’ TESTIMONY AS TO ACTUAL NEEDS AND STANDARD OF LIVING OF THE MINOR CHILD.
{¶6} The magistrate then established child support in the amount of $1,230 per month when private health insurance is being provided and $1,245.08 when private health insurance is not being provided, plus $111 per month cash medical support. The magistrate found that Husband has accessible private health insurance through a group policy and the annual contributing cost to Husband is $2,313.
{¶7} Finally, the magistrate determined that, although the child resides primarily with the Wife, the Husband shall claim the child for purposes of the federal income tax exemption, in accordance with
{¶8} On May 14, 2014, Wife filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision. Wife’s sole objection was to the magistrate’s awarding the federal tax exemption to Husband, stating that due to Husband’s income, he would not qualify for the exemption. Wife did not file a transcript of the hearing that was conducted by the magistrate, stating in her objection that she cannot afford the cost of the transcript. Rather, Wife attached as an exhibit Husband’s purported pay stub that Wife identifies as an exhibit “admitted into evidence.” Husband states in his appellate brief that he did not oppose Wife’s objection because he “did not disagree with [Wife’s] request” for the tax exemption.
{¶9} On June 9, 2014, the trial court issued a judgment entry that stated as follows:
After considering the magistrate’s decision filed May 1, 2014, pleadings, exhibits, and in the absence of a transcript, defendant’s objections filed May 14, 2014 are hereby sustained and the decision of the magistrate adopted as modified * * *.
Standard of Review
{¶10} Trial courts are given broad discretion in determining whether to modify child support orders. Abbey v. Peavy, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100893, 2014-Ohio-3921, ¶ 9, citing Woloch v. Foster, 98 Ohio App.3d 806, 810, 649 N.E.2d 918 (2d Dist.1994). And on appeal, we review a trial court’s decision adopting or rejecting a magistrate’s decision for an abuse of the court’s discretion. In re A.L., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99040, 2013-Ohio-5120, ¶ 10, citing Dancy v. Dancy, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82580, 2004-Ohio-470, ¶ 10. An abuse of discretion implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
Law and Analysis
{¶11} In his sole assignment of error, Husband contends that the trial court erred in modifying the magistrate’s child support award where Wife did not provide a transcript for the trial court’s review or object to the magistrate’s award with respect to child support.2 Husband
{¶12} In accordance with
{¶13} When ruling upon objections, the trial court is required to make an independent review of the case.
{¶14} The trial court’s independent review “requires the * * * court to ‘conduct a de novo review of the facts and an independent analysis of the issues to reach its own conclusions about the issues in the case.’” In re A.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101339, 2014-Ohio-4936, ¶ 5, quoting Radford v. Radford, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 96267 and 96445, 2011-Ohio-6263, ¶ 13. Absent a transcript, or affidavit of evidence properly filed in accordance with the rules, a trial court is limited to an examination of the magistrate’s conclusions of law and recommendations,
{¶15} Here, the magistrate analyzed the request for modification of child support under
{¶16} Under
{¶17}
{¶18} Here, the record demonstrates that the parties’ combined gross income of the parents is greater than $150,000 per year, and in accordance with
{¶19} Therefore, without a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing (or an affidavit of evidence or additional court-ordered evidentiary hearing), there is no evidence — a record — that the trial court reviewed the facts of the case. There is no record from the trial court that it had a factual basis for modifying the magistrate’s decision regarding the child support awarded under
{¶20} We therefore find the trial court’s order modifying the magistrate’s decision with respect to the child support award to be an abuse of discretion. Husband’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶21} Judgment reversed.
It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., A.J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR