LORI S. SANDEL v. DAVID CHOMA
C.A. No. 25995
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
August 22, 2012
[Cite as Sandel v. Choma, 2012-Ohio-3781.]
CARR, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 1998-06-1433
Dated: August 22, 2012
CARR, Judge.
{1} Appellant, David Choma, appeals an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. This Court reverses.
I.
{2} Mr. Choma and Appellee, Lori Sandel (fka Choma), divorced in 1998 after four years of marriage. They are the parents of two children who were toddlers at the time of the divorce. As part of the divorce decree, the parties entered into a shared parenting agreement that provided that Mr. Choma would pay $522.29 per month for each child in child support. Over the years, the parties’ incomes increased at different rates, and Mr. Choma‘s child support obligation was modified twice. In 2003, the trial court modified his obligation to $375 per month for each child. Later the same year, the parties agreed to another modification that reduced Mr. Choma‘s child support obligation to $209.88 per month for each child, including poundage. In February 2009, Mr. Choma moved to terminate his child support obligation and for an order requiring Ms.
{3} On August 10, 2009, Mr. Choma filed the motion that is at issue in this appeal, requesting that the trial court order Ms. Sandel to pay child support in light of her increased income. Hearing on the matter was continued until May 2010 and, when a second day of testimony was required, the magistrate scheduled a hearing one month later. The magistrate issued a decision on March 30, 2011, recommending an amendment of the shared parenting plan effective April 1, 2011, and an award of child support from Ms. Sandel effective on the same date. The trial court entered judgment on the magistrate‘s decision in accordance with
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SETTING THE STARTING DATE FOR THE MODIFICATION CHILD SUPPORT AS APRIL 1, 2011, AND NOT AUGUST [10], 2009.
{4} Mr. Choma‘s sole assignment of error is that the trial court should have established the date that he filed the motion to modify child support as the effective date of Ms. Sandel‘s child support obligation.
{5} When a trial court modifies child support, the change should be effective as of the date that the motion to modify was filed unless “special circumstance[s]” justify a different date.
{6} When a trial court selects a different effective date for a child support modification, that date must have a “reasonable basis” and bear some significance in the underlying litigation. In re P.J.H., 196 Ohio App.3d 122, 2011-Ohio-5970, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.2011). See also Draiss at 421. “The alternative of selecting an effective date for an ordered modification because it coincides with a ‘significant date in the litigation,’ implies a significance in relation to the grounds for the modification ordered.” (Internal citation omitted.) Bell v. Bell, 2d Dist. No. 23714, 2010-Ohio-5276, ¶ 23. Although a trial court has the discretion to select a different effective date within these parameters, it must state the reason for doing so. Scheibert v. Scheibert, 9th Dist. No. 2737, 1992 WL 393161, *3 (Dec. 30, 1992). For example, this Court has concluded that when a trial court‘s order states that “the date of the hearing is more appropriate than the date of the filing[,]” it “fails to provide an adequate basis for rejecting
{7} In this case, although Mr. Choma filed his motion to modify support on August 10, 2009, the trial court made it effective on April 1, 2011, to coincide with the amendment of the parties’ shared parenting agreement. The trial court identified the alternative date, but it did not explain its reasons for doing so. Because the trial court‘s judgment does not “provide an adequate basis for rejecting retroactive modification,” this Court must reverse and remand for the trial court to make this determination. See Dzeba at *4. Mr. Choma‘s assignment of error is sustained.
III.
{8} Mr. Choma‘s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
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 Appellee.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
MOORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JOHN M. DOHNER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
MORA LOWRY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.