Obermeyer v. Obermeyer , 2014 Ohio 143 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Obermeyer v. Obermeyer, 2014-Ohio-143.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
JEANNE L. OBERMEYER, nka TRIMBLE :
Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 25839
v. : T.C. NO. 05DR1135
JAMES A. OBERMEYER : (Civil appeal from Common
Pleas Court, Domestic Relations)
Defendant-Appellee :
and :
MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILD :
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
:
Third Party Defendant-Appellant
:
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 17th day of January , 2014.
..........
JEANNE L. OBERMEYER, nka TRIMBLE, 341 Monteray Avenue, Oakwood, Ohio 45419
Plaintiff-Appellant
JAMES A. OBERMEYER, 669 Far Hills Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45419
Defendant-Appellee
AARON HILL, Atty. Reg. No.0085471, 14 W. Fourth Street, P. O. Box 8744, Dayton, Ohio
45401
Attorney for Third Party Defendant-Appellant
..........
FROELICH, P.J.
{¶ 1} The Montgomery County Child Support Enforcement Agency (MCCSEA) appeals
from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, which found that James Obermeyer’s Notice of Mistake of Fact in regard to an
Administrative Adjustment Recommendation (AAR) made by MCCSEA was well-founded.
The court vacated the AAR and continued Mr. Obermeyer’s child support obligation at an
amount set at the time of the 2006 divorce and reaffirmed in a June 2011 agreed order.
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 3} James Obermeyer and Jeanne Obermeyer (n.k.a. Trimble) were divorced in
2006. They had three minor children at that time; Ms. Trimble was named the residential parent,
and Mr. Obermeyer was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $500 per month, per child.
Mr. Obermeyer was also ordered to pay spousal support.
{¶ 4} In 2008, 2010, and 2011, the parties filed agreed orders modifying Mr.
Obermeyer’s spousal support obligation. In the 2011 order, Mr. Obermeyer and Ms. Trimble
agreed that Mr. Obermeyer would make a lump-sum payment to Ms. Trimble of $25,000, in
exchange for which his spousal support obligation would terminate. Additionally, the agreement
expressly stated that there would be no change in child support, which remained at $500 per
month per child. (By this time, only one of the three children was still a dependent child for
whom child support was owed.) The prior agreements did not address child support.
{¶ 5} In May 2012, Ms. Trimble filed with MCCSEA a Request for an Administrative
Review of the Child Support Order. On the form used for this purpose, Ms. Trimble indicated,
3
as the reason for an administrative review, that it had been “at least 36 months since the date of
the most recent child support order.” MCCSEA conducted the review in July 2012 and
recommended to the trial court that Mr. Obermeyer’s child support obligation be increased by
approximately $350 per month. The recommendation did not explicitly address Ms. Trimble’s
assertion that it had been at least 36 months since the most recent child support order. In
response to MCCSEA’s recommendation, Mr. Obermeyer requested an administrative
mistake-of-fact hearing. The hearing was held before a magistrate in September 2012.
{¶ 6} Following the hearing, the magistrate found that it had not been at least 36
months since the most recent child support order, referencing the June 2011 agreed order. The
magistrate also observed that neither party had alleged changes in income or employment status
since the 2011 agreed order. Based on these findings, the magistrate stated that the
admininstrative adjustment review “shall not be adopted by the court and shall be vacated.
Because the Administrative Adjustment review should not have been conducted, the magistrate
finds that the last order of the Court issued on June 13, 2011 shall remain in effect.”
{¶ 7} MCCSEA filed objections to the magistrate’s decision; Ms. Trimble did not file
separate objections. In its objections, MCCSEA argued that, notwithstanding the handwritten
notation on the 2011 agreed order1 stating “no change child support,” the agreed order had not
actually addressed the issue of child support. MCCSEA placed particular emphasis on the fact
that no child support calculation worksheet was attached to the June 2011 order; according to
MCCSEA, the agreed order “would be considered voidable” without such a worksheet, because
Ohio Adm. Code 5101:12-60-05 and R.C. 3119.02 require the use of a worksheet.
1
All substantive parts of the agreed order were handwritten on a form designed for that purpose.
4
{¶ 8} In June 2013, the trial court concluded that the June 2011 agreed order
constituted a child support order; accordingly, it agreed with the magistrate’s conclusion that
MCCSEA had improperly conducted an administrative review when less than 36 months had
passed since the prior order. Thus, the trial court found that Mr. Obermeyer had established a
mistake of fact, that MCCSEA’s objections were not “well taken,” that the administrative
adjustment of child support would be vacated, and that child support would remain in effect at
$500 per month for one child.
{¶ 9} MCCSEA appeals from the trial court’s judgment, raising two assignments of
error, which we will address together.
{¶ 10} The assignments of error state:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT REVIEW.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FINDING
THAT A NEW OR MODIFIED CHILD SUPPORT ORDER NEED NOT
INCLUDE A CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES WORKSHEET
CALCULATION.
{¶ 11} MCCSEA argues that the 2011 agreed order, which stated that child support
would remain unchanged, did not “reset the 36-month clock” for administrative review under
Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-05.1(D).
{¶ 12} Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-05 states that either party to a child support order
may initiate an administrative review every 36 months from the date of the “most recent child
support order.” Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-05 (Administrative Review and Adjustment
5
Process), defines the “date of the most recent support order” as “the effective date of the last
child support order, which was issued as a result of a calculation using the Ohio child support
guidelines, including a no-change order.” MCCSEA also relies on R.C. 3119.02, which states
that a worksheet must be included in an order “where child support is issued or modified.”
{¶ 13} MCCSEA asserts that “the language in the Agreed Order shows no discussion
by the Court to analyze child support or that any income or guideline factors were considered for
modification of child support.” Therefore, MCCSEA contends that the 2011 agreed order was
“not a new order based on a guidelines calculation” because no analysis of the guidelines or the
worksheet was included in the order. MCCSEA also contends that the 2011 agreed order was
not a “new order” because it “reiterated the order already in place from the 2006 Decree of
Divorce.” MCCSEA argues that, insofar as the 2011 agreed order merely incorporated the
existing child support order in effect since the time of the divorce, the 36-month period was
properly calculated from the time of the divorce, and an administrative review was not premature.
In other words, MCCSEA contends that the 2011 agreed order had to include a child support
worksheet and/or some analysis of the guidelines in order for it to be considered a new order.
{¶ 14} The court observed that neither party had argued that there had been a
substantial change of circumstances or employment status since the June 2011 agreed order.
The trial court concluded that the 2011 order was a “no change order” under the definition set
forth in Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-05, and that the inclusion of a child support worksheet was
unnecessary if no change in the prior calculation were being made. “[I]f a court is not ordering a
modification of an existing child support obligation, then there is no longer any need to ensure
that the court properly calculated the amount to be paid, and there is no need to require that the
6
worksheet be in the record.” (Citing Davidson v. Davidson, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 07 BE 19,
2007-Ohio-6919.) Further, the trial court concluded that R.C. 3119.02 requires that the court
use the child support schedule and worksheet to calculate a support obligation, but does not
require that the worksheet be incorporated into the record. Although the trial court did not
specifically mention it, we also note that R.C. 3119.02 applies to “any action in which a court
child support order is issued or modified.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 15} In our view, the issue presented to the trial court in this case was a factual one,
rather than a broad question of statutory or regulatory interpretation. Neither the statute nor the
Ohio Administrative Code says that an order to continue (or not to change) child support cannot
constitute “the most recent support order.” The 2011 agreed order was just that – an order that
the obligor continue paying a specific amount of child support. Even MCCSEA does not argue
that it was void, only voidable.
{¶ 16} The cases cited by MCCSEA from this district involve modifications in the
amount of child support and are factually distinguishable. These cases do not support the
proposition that a child support calculation worksheet must be attached even where the amount of
child support is unchanged. See Lenoir v. Paschal, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23732,
2010-Ohio-2922; In re S.H., 2d Dist Montgomery No. 23382, 2009-Ohio-6592. Some of the
cases from other districts cited by MCCSEA as requiring a child support worksheet are also
factually distinguishable, because they involve an initial award of or modification of child
support. See, e.g., Bernard v. Kuppin, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-980360, C-980400, 1999 WL
699595 (Sept. 10, 1999) (modification); Metcalf v. Metcalf, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2001CA201,
2002-Ohio-766 (initial child support order).
7
{¶ 17} The trial court was called upon to determine whether the parties’ agreement in
2011 not to modify child support, and a court order so stating, constituted a reconsideration (and
affirmation) of the then-existing child support calculation, such that child support could not be
administratively reviewed pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-05.1 for 36 months thereafter.
At the mistake of fact hearing, Mr. Obermeyer presented evidence that the financial
circumstances of the parties had not changed since June 2011, when the agreed order was
entered. He presented additional evidence that he hoped the trial court would consider in
modifying the child support order, if it rejected his argument that the order should not have been
administratively reviewed. There was little, if any, evidence presented by either party as to their
intent when they included the notation in the 2011 agreed order that child support would remain
unchanged. However, the two prior agreed orders related to spousal support had contained no
reference to the child support order. Additionally, R.C. 3119.02 states that it applies to “any
action in which a court child support order is issued or modified;” the trial court could have
reasonably concluded that the parties’ agreement to maintain the current level of child support
was not the issuance or modification of a child support order, to which R.C. 3119.02 would
apply.
{¶ 18} The trial court reasonably concluded that the 2011 agreed order constituted an
agreement by the parties to continue the current level of child support and that, under the facts
presented in this case, the agreed order constituted the “most recent child support order.” Based
on this conclusion, child support was not subject to administrative review by MCCSEA for 36
months, or at least until June 2014.
{¶ 19} The assignments of error are overruled.
8
{¶ 20} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
..........
DONOVAN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Jeanne L. Obermeyer nka Trimble
James A. Obermeyer
Aaron Hill
Hon. Timothy D. Wood