J.E.M. v. D.N.M.J.E.M. v. D.N.M.
{¶ 1} Appellant father, J.E.M., appeals from a decision of the trial court granting appellee mother, D.N.M.’s motion to modify her child support obligation. On appeal, father raises the following two assignments of error for our review:
The trial court erred as a matter of lаw and abused its discretion in its application of the amended
Ohio Revised Code Section Chapter 3119 , effective March 28, 2019.The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss.
{¶ 2} After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting mother’s motion to modify and reducing her child support obligation.
Background
{¶ 3} The parties were married in 2014 and divorced in January 2017. They have a child, born in 2014. Under the divorce decree, father was designated the custodial parent and mother’s child support obligation was deviated to zеro due to her circumstances, which included her low income level and that she was expecting a second child (from a different relationship) at the time.
{¶ 4} The record reflects that in 2018, the Cuyahoga County Job and Family Services, Office of Child Support Services (“the agency” hereafter) reviewed the child support matter. Based on its finding of father’s annual income of $66,259 and mother’s annual income of $37,107, the agency determined the appropriate amount of mother’s child support to be $557.52 (when the child’s health insurance is being provided). Mother did not requеst a hearing regarding the agency’s recommendations; according to her testimony before the trial court, she was unaware of the agency’s review of her child support.
{¶ 6} A hearing before the magistrate was held on June 14, 2019, and July 17, 2019. Father argued that mother failed to allege a change in circumstances to justify a modification of the amount set forth in the trial court’s December 14, 2018 order. Father argued mother failed to file an objection to the agency’s finding and recommendations issued on November 1, 2018, within 30 days and the instant motion was an improper attempt to challenge the agency’s findings and recommendations.
{¶ 7} Mother testified that she did not know the agency was conducting a review of her child support and, because her other child was in the hospital for an illness at the time, she did not know about the modification of her child support until she received the court’s December 14, 2018 order. She testified that had she known about the availability of a hearing regarding the agency’s recommendations, she would have fillеd out the necessary paperwork for such a hearing. She also testified
{¶ 8} Although the applicable statute providing for the child support calculation worksheets was amended on March 28, 2019, several months before the commencement of the hearing on June 14, 2019, there was no discussion on the amendment of the statute at the hearing.
{¶ 9} Both mother and father filed written closing arguments. In her closing argument, mother disputed the agency’s determination of father’s and mother’s income. She submitted her own worksheet (based on father’s income of $71,826 and her income of $29,535) to show that her monthly child support obligation should be no more than $246.74.
{¶ 10} In his closing argument, father disputed mother’s claim regarding her income. Father also argued that mother failed to object to the agency’s findings and recommendations and her motion to modify should be treated as an untimely attempt to object to the agency’s findings and recommendatiоns. Father also claimed the affidavit attached to mother’s motion to modify was not in compliance with the requirements of Loc.R. 19 of Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
{¶ 11} Father submitted three child support worksheets for the court’s consideration. The first and second worksheets were based on the child support guidelines in effect prior to March 28, 2019. These two worksheets were based on
{¶ 12} The third worksheet submitted by father was based on the child support guidelines that took effect after March 28, 2019. Based on father’s income of $60,040 and mother’s income of $66,000, the third worksheet arrived at $524.86 for mother’s support obligation.
The Magistrate’s Decision
{¶ 13} On January 3, 2020, the magistrate issued a detailed and lengthy decision. The magistrate first noted that at the time of the agency’s rеcommendations issued on November 1, 2018, the existing version of
{¶ 15} Regarding father’s argument that mother’s motion to modify child support was in effect a request to reconsider the court’s December 14, 2018 child support order, the magistrate observed that mother filed a motion to modify the child support, as opposed to a motion fоr relief from judgment, and “[a]s such, her
{¶ 16} Noting that mother’s motion was filed before March 28, 2019, but the matter was not heard until after the effective date of the new law, the magistrate calculated mother’s child support under two worksheets: the first worksheet, based on the former law, was completed for mother’s child support obligation from December 31, 2018, to March 27, 2019; the second worksheet, based on the new law, was completed for her child support obligation commencing March 28, 2019.
{¶ 17} The first worksheet showed mother’s child support to be $484 (based on father’s income of $80,807 and mother’s income of $33,725). Because this sum reflected a differential larger than ten percent, the magistrate determined that there was a substantial change of circumstances to justify a modification of the existing support order pursuant to
{¶ 18} The magistrate’s second worksheet for mother’s support obligation, effective March 28, 2019, used a base pay of $66,040 for father plus his three-year average of overtime pay, and it used mother’s wage income of $37,107 for 2019; the worksheet also adjusted father’s child care expenses based on the father’s testimony regarding the change of childcare expenses beginning in August 2019. This worksheet, based on the new law, took into account a deviation for parenting time
{¶ 19} Father filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. First, father asserted it was an abuse of discretion for the magistrate to deny his motion to dismiss mother’s motion to modify child support. He argued there was no change in the parties’ income or expenses between the trial court’s order on December 14, 2108 order and mother’s motion to modify on December 31, 2018. Father claims it was also an abuse of discretion for the magistrate to reduce mother’s support obligation retroactive to December 31, 2018, because the magistrate considered his additional income in the worksheet computation but the additional income was received after mother’s motion to modify was filed. Father in addition argued that the magistrate’s worksheet considered a change in father’s childcare expenses but the change would not commence until August 2019.
{¶ 20} In addition, father argued the magistrate should not havе applied the amended law to mother’s support obligation after March 28, 2019, the effective date of the amended law, because her motion to modify was filed three months before that date.
{¶ 21} The trial court overruled father’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. The court rejected father’s claim that the magistrate erroneously applied the amended
Standard of Review
{¶ 22} A trial court’s decision regarding child support obligations falls within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). More specifically, we review a trial court’s child support modification order for an abuse of discretion. Morrow v. Becker, 138 Ohio St.3d 11, 2013-Ohio-4542, 3 N.E.3d 144, ¶ 9. An “abuse of discretion” occurs where the court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). The trial court has considerable discretion in child support matters; absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a child support order. Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (1997).
Whether the Trial Court Improperly Applied the Amended R.C. Chapter 3119 Retroactively
{¶ 23} Effective March 28, 2019,
{¶ 24} Kassicieh v. Mascotti, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 05AP-684 and 06AP-1224, 2007-Ohio-5079, concerned the application of
{¶ 25} The Tenth District, reviewing the issue under plain error, noted the courts have applied
{¶ 27} Instead, we find the following cases instructive. In Posadny v. Posadny, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19636, 2003-Ohio-783,
{¶ 28} Appellаnt father again appealed, claiming the reduced child support should be effective on November 1, 2000, the date of his original child support order, rather than March 22, 2001. The appellate court rejected this claim. It reasoned that the provisions of the new law allowing appellant’s support obligation to be reduced did not exist prior to March 22, 2001. The court noted that there was nothing in the statute to suggest that the Ohio legislature intended its provisions to apply to “child support obligations incurred” prior to its March 22, 2001, effective date, and, “‘[а]bsent a clear pronouncement by the General Assembly that a statute is to be applied retrospectively, a statute may be applied prospectively only.’” Posadny at ¶ 8, quoting State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178, 181, 2002-Ohio-4009, 772 N.E.2d 1172.
{¶ 29} The court in Graham v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-1435, 153 N.E.3d 843 (3d Dist.), decided the child support matter similarly. The case concerned the application of
{¶ 30} The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It noted that “[t]o avoid having the statute apply retroactively, the trial court only applied the statutory calculation from the effective date of the statute.” Id. at ¶ 14. It emphasized that the trial court “did not apply the amended statute retroactively, but only prospectively.” Id. at ¶ 16.
{¶ 31} Based on our review of the case law authority, therefore, we find no merit to father’s claim that because mother’s motion to modify was filed before March 28, 2019, the effective date of amended
{¶ 32} Father cites Schulte v. Schulte, 71 Ohio St.3d 41, 1994-Ohio-459, 641 N.E.2d 719, to support his claim. Schulte concerns the application of
Father’s Motion to Dismiss
{¶ 34} Under the second assignment of error, father argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying his motion to dismiss mother’s motion to modify child support. He claims mother’s motion to modify child support was an improper attempt to challengе the agency’s findings and recommendations.
{¶ 35} “Although the usual rule is that the courts prefer the finality of judgments, child support cases are an exception to the rule of finality.” Phelps v. Saffian, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103549, 2016-Ohio-5514, ¶ 11. “
R.C. 3119.79(A) permits either the obligor or the obligee under a child support order to request a modification of the amount of child support due to a “substantial” change of circumstances. When an existing child support order has been entered using theR.C. 3119.02 mandatory child support guidelines, the court is required to recalculate the amount of child support owing under the guidelines. If the recalculated amount of child support exceeds the existing order by ten percent or is ten percent less than the existing order, the court shall consider the ten percent difference as a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification
Id. at ¶ 12, citing
{¶ 37} Here, the magistrate found a modification of mother’s existing child support order was warranted pursuant to the ten-percent rule. On appeal, father does not claim that mother’s child support amounts under the applicable worksheets were erroneously calculated or the trial court misapplied the statutory ten percent rule set forth in
{¶ 39} Even if we were to review the issue, we find father’s claim is without merit. Local rules are created with the purpose of “promoting the fair administration of justice” and to “assist practicing attorneys by providing guidelines for orderly case administration.” Cavalry Invests. v. Dzilinski, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88769, 2007-Ohio-3767, ¶ 16. As such, trial courts are given latitude in
{¶ 40} Second, father claims under the second assignment of error that mother’s motion to modify her child support amount was an improper attempt to challenge the agency’s findings and recommendations and, as such, should be barred by res judicata.
{¶ 41} 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, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), syllabus. It is important to note that, however, because a domestic relations court has continuing jurisdiction over matters of child support, the doctrine of res judicata should be applied “with the strictest of caution in order to prevent а chilling effect on Ohio’s legal mechanisms for periodic adjustments to child support orders.” Kiehborth v. Kiehborth, 169 Ohio App.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-5529, 862 N.E.2d 863, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.). Under the circumstances of this case, where mother testified she was not aware of the agency’s review of her child support obligation or the availability a hearing of the
{¶ 42} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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 common pleas court, domestic relations division, to carry this judgment into execution.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
Notes
If the court child support order under review contains a dеviation granted under sections
(A) If an obligor or obligee under a child support order requests that the court modify the amount of child support required to be paid pursuant to the child support order, the court shall recalculate the amount of support that would be required to be paid under the child support order in accordance with the schedule and the applicable worksheet. If that amount as recalculated is more than ten per cent greater than or more than ten per cent less than the amount of child support required to be paid pursuant to the existing child support order, the deviаtion from the recalculated amount that would be required to be paid under the schedule and the applicable worksheet shall be considered by the court as a change of circumstance substantial enough to require a modification of the child support amount.
(Emphasis added.)
A motion, supported by a sworn affidavit that sets forth the specific facts constituting the alleged change of circumstance, must state the following:
(1) The date of journalization of the judgment entry that sets forth the existing child support order.
(2) The amount of the existing order, the parent(s) designated as the health insurance obligor for the parties’ minor child(ren), the parent(s) designated to claim the child(ren) as a tax dependent(s); and each parent’s percentage share of responsibility for the child(ren)’s uninsured health care expenses.
(3) The nature of the change of circumstance.
(4) The specific change or modification requested.