Owen v. OwenOwen v. Owen
Valerie K. Owen, 206 Webster Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45013, plaintiff-appellee, pro se
Brian Davidson, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 8th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee, Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency
Fred S. Miller, Baden & Jones Building, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
YOUNG, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Thomas A. Owen (husband), appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, finding that the child support order for husband‘s three children not yet emancipated
{¶2} Husband and plaintiff-appellee, Valerie K. Owen (wife), divorced on March 5, 2007. The divorce decree stated that wife owed husband $3,672 for reimbursement of marital debt paid by husband as of January 10, 2007. It also explained that such marital debt would be payable by placing a stay on husband‘s payment of child support to wife, which would serve to offset the debt owed to husband by wife.
{¶3} The incorporated shared parenting plan stated that husband was to pay wife $208.03 monthly for each of the parties’ four children. The shared parenting plan also mandated that support payments be stayed until the $3,672 debt was paid by way of offset.
{¶4} The parties’ oldest child, T.O., was born November 13, 1988, and according to the agreement, was emancipated upon the earlier of either attaining the age of 19 or his graduation from high school if he was 18 at that time. The Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency (BCCSEA) issued a “Notice of Child Support Investigation, Termination of Support,” prior to T.O.‘s completion of high school on June 8, 2007. At the time of BCCSEA‘s notice, the stay of support was still in effect, as the entire amount wife owed to husband had not yet been offset.
{¶5} A magistrate of the court issued a decision and judgment entry indicating that T.O. was emancipated effective June 8, 2007. In addition, the entry indicated that there were three remaining minor children. The entry then stated that the current support order was $0 monthly, with $0 monthly per child. The trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision, without objection, on July 10, 2007.
{¶6} Following BCCSEA‘s attempt to enforce the original child support order,
{¶7} Thereafter, on March 10, 2009, BCCSEA filed a motion for clarification of the divorce decree for child support and the emancipation order. On June 2, 2009, the court issued a final appealable order providing that the divorce decree ordered an obligation of child support, and an offset against the amount due was issued to “deplete arrears owed to [husband] from [wife]. After the arrears were paid in full [husband‘s] obligation of child support was to commence.” Neither party appealed the trial court‘s determination.
{¶8} On June 18, 2009, BCCSEA and wife simultaneously filed additional motions to set aside the magistrate‘s June 8, 2007 order pursuant to
{¶9} Husband filed an objection to the magistrate‘s decision. The trial court denied the objection and found that pursuant to
{¶10} Husband timely appeals the court‘s order, asserting a sole assignment of error:
{¶11} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN IT GRANTED THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY‘S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.”
{¶12} Husband argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection and asserts that
{¶13} A trial court‘s decision to grant or deny a
{¶14} To prevail on a
{¶15}
{¶16} In this case, the court stated that it erred in reducing the child support obligation for the parties’ three remaining minor children to zero in its June 8, 2007 order. Moreover, it also acknowledged that it “is with out [sic] authority to summarily terminate an obligation for support without an actual filing of motion or hearing.”
{¶17} It is well-established that a parent must provide financial support for his minor children. J.F. v. D.B., 116 Ohio St.3d 363, 2007-Ohio-6750, ¶15 (Cupp, J., dissenting). Thus, as the trial court stated, it is inequitable for three minor children to be denied support as a result of the court‘s mistake in reducing the support obligation to zero. Furthermore, the motion addressing the mistake was made in a timely manner, given the specific circumstances of this case. Therefore, we find the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling husband‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision, as the requirements to prevail on a
{¶18} Judgment affirmed.
POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.