580 N.E.2d 448 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1989
Appellee, Nancy Nardone, and appellant, Anthony Nardone, Jr., dissolved their marriage in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in 1979. The court ordered appellant to pay $40 per week child support plus all reasonable and necessary medical expenses for the one child born during the marriage. *800
Appellee and appellant subsequently moved to Medina County. On January 21, 1988, appellee filed a "Petition to Register a Foreign Support Order" in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. A certified copy of the judgment entry of the dissolution, which included the support order, was attached to the petition.
On August 3, 1988, at a hearing on appellee's motion to show cause for failure to pay child support, a Medina County court referee recommended that appellant pay child support, plus a lump sum which included child support arrearages and medical expenses. The trial court overruled appellant's objections to the referee's report. Appellant appeals.
R.C. Chapter 3115, Ohio's version of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, governs registration of foreign support orders. Nancy filed a petition to register the support order pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3115. Anthony submits that R.C. Chapter 3115 applies when the parties reside in separate counties or states. Since Anthony and Nancy reside in the same county, Anthony contends that Nancy's registration under R.C. Chapter 3115 was ineffective. Therefore, he argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Nancy did not properly register the support order in Medina County.
The trial court reviewed R.C. Chapter 3115 and found that the Act covered the proceedings. The court noted that the legislative purpose of the Act is to improve and extend the "enforcement of duties of support" (R.C.
"Jurisdiction of all proceedings under sections
"The complaint may be filed in the appropriate court of any state in which the obligee resides. The court shall not decline or refuse to accept and forward the complaint on the ground that it should be filed with some other court of this or any other state where there is pending another action for divorce, separation, annulment, dissolution, habeas corpus, adoption, or custody between the same parties or where another court has already issued a *801
support order in some other proceeding and has retained jurisdiction for its enforcement." R.C.
Since Medina is the court of record, and Nancy filed the support order in the court located in the county in which she resides, that court cannot refuse jurisdiction. The first assignment of error is overruled.
Anthony asserts that the trial court should have applied a clear and convincing standard of proof in the hearing on Nancy's motion to show cause for failure to pay child support.
The trial court held that the case matter is not criminal and that the standard required is proof by a preponderance of evidence.
"A court has authority both under R.C.
Anthony argues that the trial court impermissibly referred the case to a referee who lacked the authority to hear a motion to show cause for failure to pay child support. His argument is based on the premise that the case was a criminal matter.
The third assignment of error is overruled because the motion to show cause for failure to pay child support is a civil matter. Civ.R. 75(C) vests the referee with authority to hear the matter involved in the instant case. *802
Anthony argues that the referee should have ordered a court reporter to record the proceedings of the show cause hearing. The record indicates that Anthony orally requested that the referee order a court reporter to record the proceedings at the commencement of the hearing.
"* * * R.C.
Anthony did not file a written motion requesting a court reporter to record evidence at the hearing. He failed to comply with the requirements of Civ.R. 53(C), so the trial court had no affirmative duty to provide a court reporter. The fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Anthony contends that the court should not have permitted any testimony regarding medical bills because no mention of medical bills had been made prior to the hearing, thus depriving him of notice and an opportunity to defend against the charges.
R.C.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
REECE, J., concurs.
QUILLIN, J., concurs in judgment only.