JACK HALL v. LYNN ZIMMERMAN
C.A. No. 20CA011639
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
February 1, 2021
[Cite as Hall v. Zimmerman, 2021-Ohio-270.]
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 05 DU 064602
Dated: February 1, 2021
CALLAHAN, Presiding Judge.
{1} Appellant, Jack Hall, appeals an order of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that modified his child support obligation. This Court affirms.
I.
{2} Jack Hall and Lynn Zimmerman divorced in 2006. They are the parents of two children, both of whom were minоrs at the time of the divorce. As part of the divorce decree, the trial court approved a shared parenting plan with respect to the minor children. In 2009, the parties resolved a dispute regarding child support by an agreement that provided Mr. Hall would pay $150.01 per month for each child, for a total of $300.02 per month. Four years later, Mr. Hall moved to terminate the shared parenting plan, arguing that Ms. Zimmerman had relocated to Cuyahoga County, which resulted in difficulty implementing the transportation schedule for their respective parenting times. The trial court denied that motion, but in doing so also increased Mr. Hall‘s child support obligation to $471.26 per month. Mr. Hall‘s child support obligation was
{3} On August 17, 2018, Mr. Hall moved to terminate the shared parenting plan again, arguing that a change to Ms. Zimmerman‘s employment had caused a substantial change in the parties’ circumstances. On November 2, 2018, Ms. Zimmerman also moved tо terminate the shared parenting plan and requested an order modifying Mr. Hall‘s child support obligation. Mr. Hall moved to modify his child support obligation on March 26, 2019. The trial court determined that all the motions related to parental rights and responsibilities and child support should be heard together.
{4} On the date of trial, the parties reached an agreement. According to the terms of their agreement, which were incorporated into an agreed judgment entry dated June 4, 2019, the parties agreed to dismiss their respectivе motions and to maintain the shared parenting plan with modifications. The agreed judgment entry did not address child support except for providing that the child‘s primary health insurance would be provided by Ms. Zimmerman‘s husband.
{5} Shortly thereafter, the Lorain County Child Support Enforcеment Agency (“CSEA“) issued an amended income withholding order that required Mr. Hall to pay additional child support in connection with a periodic review of his child support obligation.1 It appears from the record that Ms. Zimmerman objected to the amount of that determination. Mr. Hall, who also objected to the CSEA determination, argued that modification of his child support obligation pursuant to that review was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Following a hearing, the
{6} Mr. Hall appealed. His two assignments of error are reversed for ease of analysis.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SUA SPONTE AND EX PARTE REVIEWED THE AUDIO RECORD OF THE MAY 31, 2019 HEARING THAT WAS NOT A PART OF THE RECORD.
{7} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Hall argues that the trial court erred by listening to an audio recording of a hearing that took place before the magistrate when the parties reached a settlement. This Court does not agree.
{8} The threshold issue with respect to Mr. Hall‘s argument is the nature of the audio recording. Mr. Hall maintains that it was not part of the record and, consequently, it was error for the trial court to consider it. “Proceedings before any court * * * may be recorded by stenographic means, phonogramic means, photographic means, audio electronic recording devices, or video recording systems.”
{9} Given that the recording of the hearing before the magistrate was part of the trial court‘s record, the question becomes whether it was error for the trial court to consider it in the context of reviewing Mr. Hall‘s objеctions to the magistrate‘s decision. This issue is governed by the terms of
Action on Objections. If one or more objections to a magistrate‘s decision are timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections. In ruling on objections, the court shall undertake an indeрendent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law. Before so ruling, the court may hear additional evidence but may refuse tо do so unless the objecting party demonstrates that the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have produced that evidence for consideration by the magistrate.
By permitting trial courts to hear additional evidence, the Rule “contemplаtes that new events may arise or be discovered between the time of a magistrate‘s decision and a trial judge‘s final judgment, and * * * provides a mechanism for the introduction of such evidence in a timely manner.” In re A.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26462, 2013-Ohio-1975, ¶ 14 (analyzing identical provisions of
{10} The audio recording at issue in this case was part of the trial court‘s existing record, however, and was not “additional evidence” as contemplated by
{11} Mr. Hall‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE TRIAL COURT AND SUPPORT MAGISTRATE ERRED WHEN THEY MODIFIED THE EXISTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDER IN VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.
{12} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Hall has argued that the trial court erred by modifying his child support obligation. Specifically, he maintains that the parties’ settlement agreement precluded modification of child support under the doctrine of res judicata. This Court does not agree.
{13} This Court reviews a decision regarding the modification of child support for an abuse of discretion. See Seegert v. Seegert, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28932, 2018-Ohio-5119, ¶ 8, citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 (1989). See generally Barlow v. Barlow, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 08CA0055, 2009-Ohio-3788, ¶ 5 (observing that this Court alsо reviews a trial court‘s actions with respect to a magistrate‘s decision for an abuse of discretion). When considering whether a trial court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata, however, this Court employs a de novo standard of review. State ex rel. DeWine v. Helms, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28304, 2017-Ohio-7148, ¶ 5, citing Galvin v. Adkins, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 08CA009322, 2008-Ohio-3202, ¶ 16.
{14} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995), syllabus. Res judicatа incorporates the concepts of both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Id. at 381. “With regard to claim preclusion, a final judgment or decree rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is a complete bar to any subsequеnt action on the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them.” Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322, 2015-Ohio-2805, ¶ 7, citing Grava at 381. In addition, “an existing final judgment or decree between the parties is conclusive as to all claims that were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.” Id., citing Grava at 382. In both situations, the existence of a final judgment is a prerequisite to the application of res judicata. “A judicially approved settlement agreement that includes a dismissal of the action with prejudice is considered a final adjudication on the merits, and res judicata will apply to bar any further action on the same issue.” McAdams v. Mercedez-Benz USA, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3702, ¶ 22.
{15} In divorce cases, however, the doctrine of res judicata “should not be applied strictly” in some contexts. Kelm v. Kelm, 92 Ohio St.3d 223, 227 (2001). See also Singer v. Dickinson, 63 Ohio St.3d 408, 412-414 (1992). Orders that allocate parental rights and responsibilities, for example, can be modified by the trial сourt. Kelm at 227. For that reason, they are “never absolutely final,” and the “application of res judicata [is] impractical.” Id. “[I]n the area of custody and visitation, we sacrifice finality and some of our limited judicial resources in order to secure a higher valuе—the best interests of children.” Id. Like the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, child support is subject to modification and, as a general rule, res judicata does not apply unless a motion seeks to revisit an issue previously considered and dеcided
{16} According to Ms. Zimmerman, she informed CSEA of a change in her income on or about July 1, 2018. CSEA appears to have initiated a periodic review of Mr. Hall‘s child support obligation in response to the information that Ms. Zimmerman provided. In an affidavit filed in support of his objections to CSEA‘s determination, Mr. Hall averred that in August 2018, CSEA informed him that its administrative review would be held in abeyance until his own motion to modify child support was resolved. Ms. Zimmerman filed her motion to modify child support approximately two months later. It is therefore apparent that Mr. Hall knew that CSEA had initiated an administrative review of his child support obligation throughout the course of the proceedings and, indeed, at the time that the settlement agreement was negotiated.
{17} Nevertheless, the agreed judgment entry—which Mr. Hall acknowledges that he prеpared in conjunction with his attorney—is silent regarding child support. In support of his argument that the settlement was intended to freeze his child support obligation at its then-current level, Mr. Hall‘s affidavit averred that “the concessions agreed to by the parties were indeed in consideration for no further modification to child support[.]” Mr. Hall‘s appellate brief correctly emphasizes that a trial court speaks only through its journal entries. See, e.g., Finley & Sons Builders, Inc. v. Cross, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23738, 2007-Ohio-7037, ¶ 7, quoting Radcliff v. Steen Elec., Inc., 164 Ohio App.3d 161, 2005-Ohio-5503, ¶ 56 (9th Dist.), quoting State ex rel.
{18} CSEA has the ongoing responsibility to conduct periodic administrative reviews of child support orders. See
{19} Mr. Hall‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{20} Mr. Hall‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JONATHAN E. ROSENBAUM, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
LYNN ZIMMERMAN, pro se, Appellee.