Gobel v. RiversGobel v. Rivers
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 23, 2010
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney
BY: Lawrence Rafalski
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Post Office Box 93894
Cleveland, Ohio 44101-5894
FOR APPELLEES
Tina Gobel, pro se
2362 West 6th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Louis Rivers, pro se
3388 West 44th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
MARY J. BOYLE, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant, Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”), appeals from a judgment of the domestic relations court denying its motion to show cause in part and granting it in part, finding that defendant-appellee, Louis Rivers, was not in contempt of court since plaintiff-appellee, Tina Gobel, waived child support arrearages owed, but ordering that he continue to pay child support. CSEA raises seven assignments of error for our review, arguing that the trial court erred:
{¶ 3} Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History and Factual Background
{¶ 4} Tina Gobel and Louis Rivers were divorced in 2001. At that time, Gobel was named residential parent and legal custodian of the parties’ three minor children, and Rivers, who was unemployed, was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $51 per month. Rivers‘s support obligation increased in February 2006 to $237.70 per child per month, equaling $727.35 per month with a two percent processing fee to CSEA.
{¶ 6} In November 2008, CSEA filed a second motion to show cause against Rivers. The matter was heard before a magistrate on February 23, 2009. The magistrate‘s decision stated that all parties appeared and entered into the following agreement:
{¶ 7} “The parties entered into an agreement whereby the parties agreed that the Defendant/Husband had been shot in September 2008 and is now in the process of seeking Social Security Disability whereby the parties agree to waive arrears [which according to CSEA were up to $26,852.41 as of January 31, 2009] effective 02/23/2009. The Assistant County Prosecutor made an oral motion that the Defendant should be held liable for the processing fee on the waived arrears. A processing fee of 2% of the current
{¶ 8} CSEA filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, asserting that it had informed the magistrate prior to the hearing that it was willing to withdraw the motion to show cause since Gobel wished to waive the arrears owed, but that CSEA would not waive the two percent processing fee. CSEA further explained that it left the hearing for “five to ten minutes” to obtain the exact dollar amount owed for the processing fees, and when it returned, the magistrate had sent Gobel and Rivers away after having them sign the agreed judgment entry. The magistrate wanted CSEA to sign the agreed entry, but it refused because the parties had signed the entry without the exact dollar amount of processing fees owed to CSEA. When CSEA refused to sign the agreed entry, the magistrate crossed out “agreed judgment entry,” and made it an exhibit attached to the magistrate‘s decision.
{¶ 9} The trial court sustained CSEA‘s objections and set the matter for rehearing.
{¶ 10} The matter — which was still CSEA‘s motion to show cause filed in October 2008 — was heard again in early June 2009. This time, however,
{¶ 11} CSEA again objected to the magistrate‘s decision, claiming that since the parties failed to appear, it should have obtained a default judgment against Rivers on its contempt motion. It further objected to the magistrate using “evidence” from the February hearing for the June hearing since the trial court had sustained its objections from the magistrate‘s decision after the February hearing.
{¶ 12} The trial court again sustained CSEA‘s objections regarding the magistrate‘s June 2009 decision and set the matter for rehearing on August
{¶ 13} On September 25, 2009, the trial court issued its final judgment, which CSEA is now appealing. In it, the trial court adopted, “in part, the findings set forth in the Magistrate’s Decisions filed February 27, 2009 and June 4, 2009.” It indicated that Gobel and Rivers, although properly served, failed to appear. It ordered that CSEA‘s motion to show cause, filed in November 2008, was granted in part and denied in part. It found Rivers not to be in contempt of court and ordered that he did not owe any arrears up to February 23, 2009, the date Gobel waived them. It further ordered that Rivers owed CSEA $576.89 for processing charges up to February 23, 2009. It then ordered that Rivers continue to pay $727.35 per month in child support, plus a two percent processing fee, and continue paying $50 per month toward any arrearages that had accrued since February 23, 2009.
Standard of Review
{¶ 14} In all but one of CSEA‘s assignments of error (all but the sixth), it essentially argues that the trial court‘s judgment was not supported by competent, credible evidence for alleged procedural or evidentiary issues. Thus, we will address them together.
{¶ 16} Moreover, in accordance with
{¶ 17} After reviewing the record in the case before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion. The only matter before it was CSEA‘s motion to show cause. Although Gobel did not appear for the August 17, 2009 hearing, she had appeared for the February hearing and waived all arrears as of that date before the magistrate. The magistrate found that Gobel had properly waived her arrears as of February 23, 2009. Although the trial court generally sustained CSEA‘s objections to that magistrate decision, it did not indicate that it rejected any of the magistrate‘s findings. Further, CSEA does not assert, nor did it ever assert to the trial court, that Gobel did not waive her arrears.
{¶ 18}
{¶ 19} According to CSEA‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision, it refused to sign the agreed judgment entry solely because the exact dollar amount owed to CSEA as of February 23, 2009 was not included in the entry when Gobel and Rivers signed it. Gobel had not received public assistance
{¶ 20} After the second hearing, the magistrate removed the language that CSEA was not entitled to processing fees and stated that CSEA could file a motion for processing fees because they could not be exactly determined at that time. CSEA once again objected. The trial court generally sustained CSEA‘s objections for the second time and ordered the matter be reheard. This time, the trial court heard the matter. But again, the only matter before the trial court was CSEA‘s motion to show cause filed in October 2008.
{¶ 21} Finally, after the August hearing, the trial court adopted some of the magistrate‘s findings from the first two hearings, mainly that Gobel had waived all arrears at the February 23, 2009 hearing because Rivers had been seriously injured from a gunshot wound and was applying for Social Security disability. Thus, since there were no arrears, the trial court found that Rivers was not in contempt of court, but it ordered that he was still
{¶ 22} Accordingly, we find the trial court had competent, credible evidence before it when issuing its decision.
{¶ 23} As for CSEA‘s sixth assignment of error, arguing that the trial court violated CSEA‘s due process rights by informing CSEA at the August 2009 hearing that it planned to issue a default contempt judgment against Rivers, but then issued a judgment contrary to that, we find no error. CSEA‘s reasoning ignores the language of
{¶ 24} Finally, as for CSEA‘s argument that the magistrate violated
{¶ 25} We do, however, strongly urge the trial court to comply with the mandates of
{¶ 26} Except as otherwise provided by law, all proceedings before a magistrate shall be recorded in accordance with procedures established by the court.
{¶ 27} This rule was adopted in part to assure that there is no shoddy or irregular practice regarding the recording of magistrate‘s hearings throughout the state. Moyers v. Moyers (June 18, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-A-0080 (discussing the former provision,
{¶ 28} This court notes that it has made it abundantly clear to the judges of this trial court that a renewed practice of not providing a formal record of the proceedings before the magistrates of that court would not be countenanced, except under the most narrow of justifiable circumstances, viz. the unknown malfunction of an official reporting device.
{¶ 30} CSEA‘s seven assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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.
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR