MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

Dayton, OH - Divorce lawyer represented defendant with appealing from a judgment of corrected child support .

The record establishes that Crouse and plaintiff-appellee Bruce Burns were
married in Greenville, Ohio, on September 3, 2005. During the course of the marriage
the parties had three children, all of whom are minors. The parties divorced in 2014, and
they entered into a shared parenting plan with respect to the children.
{¶ 3} Relevant to this appeal, on June 24, 2020, Crouse filed a motion to terminate
the shared parenting plan only with respect to the parties’ minor child, Z.B. In the same
motion, Crouse also requested a modification in Burns’s child support payments and
repayment of certain expenses incurred by Crouse. A hearing was held before a
magistrate on March 11, 2021. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the
magistrate that they had reached an agreement settling all issues addressed in Crouse’s
motion. Burns’s counsel read the following agreement into the record:
Your Honor, if it may please the Court, it’s my understanding that this
agreement would resolve all pending motions. The parties have
exchanged expenses through Our Family Wizard and various other means.
Nonetheless, the (inaudible) of all those expenses, father, as of today’s
date, would owe to mother the sum of $2,000.00. This would account for
expenses for extracurricular school fees, medical, all of those things.
-3-
That’s what the total is as of today’s date.
Going forward, the following expenses would be split by the parties.
School enrollment fees, extracurricular enrollment/registration fees, and
school related field trips.
My client, [Burns], will be responsible for school lunches. The
following expenses will not be split. I mean, these are – all other expenses
are not split unless specifically said but, specifically, we’re stating private
lessons, instructions, sports supplies, gears, none of those things will now
be split. Each person retains what they currently purchased for the
children.
In relation to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, the
two boys would remain subject to the shared parenting plan as detailed in
the prior order. The minor child, [Z.B.], mother shall be designated
residential parent and legal custodian of that minor child. Father will have
parenting time as detailed in the recommendation of the guardian ad litem.
The minor child, [Z.B.], shall continue to go to the Greenville School
District and shall continue to do so. Father will have parenting time one
weekend per month plus holiday visitation pursuant to standard order. The
minor children, [Z.B. and H.B.], should continue with counseling and the
parents will participate in that counseling as the counselor recommends.
(Emphasis added.) Hearing Tr. p. 6-7.
{¶ 4} In regard to the $2,000 owed by Burns to Crouse for unpaid expenses, the
parties and the magistrate had the following exchange:
-4-
Crouse’s Counsel: But he [Burns’s counsel] did indicate that there was a
$2,000 amount that Mr. Burns is responsible to – to my client.
The Magistrate: Um-hmm.
Crouse’s Counsel: And so we had discussed as part of the agreement that
the new – that the permanent – that the current child support would
terminate and that the – that the new child support order would become
effective when the number would surpass the $2,000 that he owed.
The Magistrate: Wasn’t it August or something like that?
Crouse’s Counsel: Well, I just mentioned August as a number but it’s going
to be close to August, I believe.
The Magistrate: That was my recollection of what you folks had discussed.
Burns’s Counsel: We did discuss it. I didn’t read that on because I didn’t
have a number to calculate which month.
* * *
Crouse’s Counsel: Yeah. And I don’t know what that number – and we can
just – once we get the child support number, we can calculate what that
month might be but it will be – I just want to make sure that the parties
understand that that $2,000 that is owed will be captured in a delay of
whatever the child support might otherwise be.
The Magistrate: Yes. And that’s – that’s my understanding.
(Emphasis added.) Hearing Tr. p. 16-18.
{¶ 5} Two weeks after the hearing, on March 25, 2021, Burns’s counsel filed the
parties Agreed Journal Entry regarding Crouse’s motion to terminate the shared parenting
-5-
plan with respect to Z.B. The journal entry reflected the agreement reached by the
parties at the March 11 hearing before the magistrate, with the exception of paragraph
number six, which stated as follows:
6. Plaintiff provided check number #749 in the amount of Two Thousand
Dollars ($2,000.00) to counsel for the Defendant on or about March 15,
2021 for the payment of outstanding equalization of expenses and costs of
the children as of March 11, 2021.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 6} The trial court adopted the agreed entry, but Crouse’s counsel did not sign
the document. On April 27, 2021, Crouse filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant
to Civ.R. 60(B)(5), in which she argued that the agreed journal entry “did not reflect the
agreement which was read onto the record.” On May 4, 2021, the magistrate overruled
Crouse’s motion for relief from judgment. On May 17, 2021, Crouse filed objections to
the magistrate’s decision, and after receiving a transcript of the March 11 hearing, she
filed supplemental objections on June 17, 2021. Burns did not file a memoranda in
opposition to Crouse’s motion for relief from judgment or any objections to the
magistrate’s decision.
{¶ 7} On July 7, 2021, the trial court overruled Crouse’s objections and adopted
the magistrate’s decision. With respect to the $2,000 paid to Crouse by Burns, as noted
in the agreed journal entry, the trial court stated the following:
First, Ms. Crouse claims that the payment by Plaintiff of a $2,000
claim was not to be in a lump sum fashion to Defendant. Instead, payment
was to be made by a suspension of child support payments by Defendant.
-6-
The transcript does not set forth a method of payment by Plaintiff,
nor does the transcript indicate that child support by Defendant will be
suspended until the $2,000 amount is paid by credited child support. While
the parties may have discussed these options during their off-the-record
negotiations, there is no record to support the Defendant’s claim. The
Agreed Journal Entry is accurate and will not be modified in this regard.
(Footnotes omitted.) Judgment Overruling Objections to Magistrate’s Decision, p. 2. In
a footnote, the trial court also stated “[i]f the Journal Entry is accurate, the Defendant’s
claim is somewhat disingenuous since Plaintiff paid $2,000 on March 15, 2021 which was
apparently accepted by Defendant – by herself or her counsel – as of that date.” The
trial court filed an amended judgment entry on July 9, 2021.
{¶ 8} Crouse appeals, raising one assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED APPELLANT’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.
{¶ 9} Crouse contends that the trial court erred when it overruled her objections
and adopted the decision of the magistrate. Specifically, she argues that the Agreed
Journal Entry did not accurately reflect the agreement reached by the parties at the
hearing before the magistrate held on March 11, 2021. Burns did not file a brief in
response to Crouse’s appellate brief.
{¶ 10} We review child support decisions under an abuse of discretion standard.
Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). The decision whether
to deviate from the child support guidelines and worksheet is a discretionary matter and
will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Hattenbach v. Watson, 2d Dist.
-7-
Montgomery No. 27071, 2016-Ohio-5648, ¶ 14, citing Havens v. Havens, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 11AP-708, 2012-Ohio-2867, ¶ 6. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
trial court exhibits an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. AAAA
Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157,
161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990).
{¶ 11} First, Crouse argues that the payment of $2,000 for expenses was not to be
paid to her by Burns in a lump sum fashion. Crouse asserts that the parties agreed that
child support paid by her would be suspended until the $2,000 owed by Burns was paid
by credited child support. However, the record establishes that on March 15, 2021,
Crouse and/or her counsel accepted a check from Burns for expenses in the amount of
$2,000. While this may or may not have been what the parties originally intended, it is
undisputed that Crouse accepted full payment for the expenses owed by Burns.
Accordingly, Crouse cannot establish that she suffered any prejudice as a result of the
trial court’s decision overruling her objection in this regard.
{¶ 12} Second, Crouse argues that the trial court erred when it overruled her
objections to the magistrate’s decision because it incorrectly utilized a “Split Parental
Worksheet” when it determined Crouse’s child support obligation. Essentially, Crouse
argues that the terms of the Agreed Journal Entry required her to pay child support for a
child of whom she already had custody.
{¶ 13} At the hearing before the magistrate, the following exchange occurred:
Burns’s Counsel: * * * For child support purposes, effective today’s date, the
inputs to calculate support would be father would have an income of
$54,000. Mother would have income of $85,000. Father would have two
-8-
children in his column. Mother would have one. So a two and one split.
Father would receive credit for $1,068 for health insurance costs. Mother,
$1,195. Based upon the extra time mother has with the boys, she would
receive a 25 percent deviation from her child support obligation.
* * *
Crouse’s Counsel: On the child support calculation, the two and one.
There’s still a shared parenting – well, which I guess it captures with the
deviation.
The Magistrate: It does, yes. There will be an overall 25 percent deviation.
This worksheet is a little unusual because of the ten percent and the work
– the new worksheet is unusual because of the way we have custody for
one parent but then we have shared parenting for the other two.
Crouse’s Counsel: On the two.
The Magistrate: I would not get hung up by that label.
Crouse’s Counsel: Right.
The Magistrate: We still – the number of children is what we’re –
Crouse’s Counsel: Right.
The Magistrate: I feel like what is the main thing. It’s not going to affect the
amount of child support.
Crouse’s Counsel: Right. So – so the two and one is the appropriate
calculation --
Burns’s Counsel: If we check the box shared parenting or sole parenting, it
does not impact the amount of support paid.
-9-
Crouse’s Counsel: Okay.
The Magistrate: Correct.
Crouse’s Counsel: That’s what I understood, too, but I didn’t know – like you
said – okay. So we’re good.
Hearing Tr. p. 7, 9-10.
{¶ 14} It is undisputed that Crouse was awarded sole custody of one child, Z.B.,
while the parties maintained shared parenting of the other two children. In her brief,
Crouse argues that it was improper for the trial court to utilize a “Split Parental Worksheet”
to determine her child support obligation because the worksheet “suggests one parent
has 2 of the children and the other parent has 1 child.” Appellant’s Brief, p. 4. However,
as is plain from the exchange above, this is precisely what Crouse’s counsel agreed to at
the hearing before the Agreed Journal Entry was filed. The trial court prepared its own
split parental worksheet using the data submitted by the parties and found that Burns’s
counsel “correctly inputted” said data “when preparing and submitting the worksheet with
the [Agreed Journal] Entry” of March 25, 2021. Furthermore, as noted by the trial court,
Crouse actually received a 35% deviation from the standard child support order, rather
than a 25% deviation. The trial court stated that it did find one error in the worksheet
regarding adjustments to income for the cost of health insurance paid by Crouse, but the
error was corrected by the trial court and is not relevant to this appeal. On the record
before us, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled
Crouse’s objections regarding its calculation of her child support obligation.
{¶ 15} Crouse’s assignment of error is overruled.

Outcome: The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: