Gerdes v. Gerdes ( 2020 )

[Cite as Gerdes v. Gerdes, 2020-Ohio-3405.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
MARTIN GERDES, :
Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2019-07-106
: OPINION
- vs - 6/22/2020
:
ANNE GERDES, :
Appellee. :
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. DR2017-10-0903
Cook Howard Law, Ltd., Melynda Cook Howard, 1501 First Avenue, Middletown, Ohio
45044, for appellant
Anne Gerdes, 4366 Cherry Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, pro se
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Martin Gerdes ("Husband"), appeals a decision issued by the
Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying several
motions Husband filed following his divorce from appellee, Anne Gerdes ("Wife"), wherein
Butler CA2019-07-106
Husband requested certain modifications be made to the parties' final divorce decree.1 For
the reasons outlined below, we reverse the domestic relations court's decision and remand
for further proceedings.
{¶ 2} Husband and Wife were married on October 16, 1999. There were three
children born issue of the marriage: D.G., born on July 17, 2000; J.G., born on May 1, 2003;
and C.G., born on July 14, 2004. Husband and Wife were separated following a domestic
violence incident that occurred on October 2, 2017. This incident resulted in criminal
charges being brought against Mother and the issuance of a domestic violence civil
protection order.2
{¶ 3} On October 13, 2017, Husband filed a complaint for divorce alleging the
parties were incompatible. Husband also alleged that Wife was guilty of gross neglect of
duty. Upon receiving Husband's complaint, the domestic relations court designated
Husband as the children's temporary residential parent and ordered Wife to pay monthly
child support to Husband.
{¶ 4} On December 7, 2018, the domestic relations court issued a decision on
Husband's complaint for divorce finding the parties were entitled to a divorce on the grounds
of incompatibility and named Husband as the residential parent and legal custodian of the
children. The domestic relations court also ordered Husband to pay Wife a lump sum
property settlement in the amount of $9,734.77.
{¶ 5} On December 19, 2018, the domestic relations court issued a supplemental
decision. As part of this decision, the domestic relations court ordered Wife to pay $825.03
1. Wife did not file an appellee's brief. Pursuant to App.R. 18(C), when an appellee fails to file a brief, "in
determining the appeal, the court may accept the appellant's statement of the facts and issues as correct and
reverse the judgment if appellant's brief reasonably appears to sustain such action."
2. Wife was later convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a first-degree misdemeanor.
This court affirmed Wife's conviction in State v. Gerdes, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-03-056, 2019-Ohio-
913.
-2-
Butler CA2019-07-106
per month in child support to Husband, whereas Husband was ordered to pay $1,175 per
month in spousal support to Wife.
{¶ 6} On January 18, 2019, the domestic relations court issued a judgment entry
and decree of divorce setting forth its earlier orders requiring: (1) Husband to pay Wife a
lump sum property settlement in the amount of $9,734.77; (2) Wife to pay Husband $825.03
per month in child support; and (3) Husband to pay Wife $1,175 per month in spousal
support.
{¶ 7} Over the next several months, Husband filed several motions with the
domestic relations court. These motions included a motion to modify spousal support, a
motion to modify child support, and a motion to "review property judgment" that requested
the domestic relations court: (1) "offset" the $9,734.77 lump sum property settlement he
owed to Wife against the child support arrears Wife owed to him; (2) "offset" his monthly
spousal support payment against Wife's monthly child support obligations since Wife was
"not paying child support timely;" and (3) modify the amount of spousal support he owed to
Wife due to the changing "tax implications" that totaled "approximately $2,500.00 annually."
{¶ 8} On May 20, 2019, the domestic relations court held a hearing on Husband's
various motions. During this hearing, the domestic relations court heard testimony from
both Husband and Wife. This included testimony from Husband claiming he was unable to
afford his monthly spousal support obligation to Wife without Wife first paying her monthly
child support obligation owed to him. Following this hearing, on June 3, 2019, both parties
filed written closing arguments with the domestic relations court. As part of his closing
arguments, Husband claimed that "[a]n offset from spousal support and child support is in
the best interest of the minor children as well as equitable to both parties."
{¶ 9} On June 17, 2019, the domestic relations court issued a decision summarily
denying each of Husband's motions. Approximately three weeks later, on July 12, 2019,
-3-
Butler CA2019-07-106
Husband moved the domestic relations court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
However, by the time Husband had filed this motion, Husband had already filed a notice of
appeal with this court on July 8, 2019. Likely due to the fact Husband had already filed a
notice of appeal, on July 17, 2019, the domestic relations court denied Husband's motion
for findings of fact and conclusions by noting it had "considered all evidence and entered
its decision(s)."
{¶ 10} Husband now appeals the domestic relations court's decision summarily
denying his various motions, raising three assignments of error for review. Husband's three
assignments of error are as follows:
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 12} REFUSAL TO GRANT AN OFFSET OF THE APPELLANT'S OBLIGATION
OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT WITH THE APPELLEE'S OBLIGATION OF CHILD SUPPORT
WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} REFUSAL TO OFFSET THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT LUMP SUM
JUDGEMENT APPELLEE WAS TO RECEIVE FROM APPELLANT AGAINST THE CHILD
SUPPORT ARREARAGES OWED BY APPELLEE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGOR WAS AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING TO REDUCE
SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD AS A RESULT OF THE TAX IMPLICATIONS RESULTING
FROM A DECREE FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2019.
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations court
abused its discretion by denying his motion to "offset" his monthly spousal support
obligation that he owed to Wife with the monthly child support obligation that Wife owed to
-4-
Butler CA2019-07-106
him. Similarly, in his second assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations
court abused its discretion by denying his motion to "offset" the lump sum property
settlement he owed to Wife with the child support arrearages Wife owed to him. Finally, in
his third assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations court abused its
discretion by denying his motion to modify his monthly spousal support obligation he owed
to Wife when considering the tax implications changed after the domestic relations court
issued its decision but before the final divorce decree was filed.
{¶ 18} Since Husband had already filed his notice of appeal by the time he moved
the domestic relations court for findings of fact and conclusions of law, it was proper for the
domestic relations court to summarily deny Husband's motion for findings of fact and
conclusions of law. See H.C. v. R.K., 9th Dist. Medina No. 14CA0103-M, 2016-Ohio-1572,
¶ 24 (appellant's "notice of appeal deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act on her request
for findings of fact and conclusions of law that she filed after the notice of appeal"). "Absent
findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must presume regularity of the proceedings and
proper application of the law by the trial court." Mandzak v. Graves, 12th Dist. No. Butler
No. CA2009-06-173, 2010-Ohio-595, ¶ 10. That is to say, in the absence of findings of fact
and conclusions of law, "we generally must presume that the trial court applied the law
correctly and must affirm if some evidence in the record supports its judgment." McCarty
v. Hayner, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 08CA8, 2009-Ohio-4540, ¶ 21, fn. 1.
{¶ 19} However, even when presuming the regularity of the proceedings, "'for this
court to be able to conduct any meaningful review of the trial court's exercise of its
discretion, we must be able to discern some basis for its decision.'" In re Q.R., 12th Dist.
Clinton No. CA2017-11-020, 2018-Ohio-4785, ¶ 14, quoting In re Estate of Murray, 11th
Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0030, 2005-Ohio-1892, ¶ 26. But, in this case, the domestic
relations court did not provide any reasoning or analysis as to why it had decided to deny
-5-
Butler CA2019-07-106
Husband's various post-decree motions. In other words, the record provides no indication
of the domestic relations court's basis for denying Husband's requests for the domestic
relations court to: (1) "offset" the $9,734.77 lump sum property settlement he owed to Wife
against the child support arrears Wife owed to him; (2) "offset" his monthly spousal support
payment against Wife's monthly child support obligations since Wife was "not paying child
support timely;" and (3) modify the amount of spousal support he owed to Wife due to the
changing "tax implications" that totaled "approximately $2,500.00 annually."
{¶ 20} This court cannot perform a meaningful appellate review of the domestic
relations court's decision absent a clear indication of the domestic relations court's
underlying reasoning and analysis. See Preece v. Stern, 12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2008-
09-024 and 2008-09-029, 2009-Ohio-2519, ¶ 14. "[W]hen that analysis and clear reasoning
is absent from the trial court's written opinion, it is impossible to review the decision without
supplanting the trial court's judgment with our own." Id.; Barrow v. New Miami, 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2014-04-092, 2014-Ohio-5743, ¶ 27 (meaningful appellate review cannot be
had where this court "would be forced to supplement our judgment for that of the trial court,
something the law does not permit"). This holds true even though Wife did not file an
appellee's brief. "[M]eaningful appellate review does not permit simply accepting one
party's unsupported interpretation of the testimony and evidence as the only valid
interpretation." Dasilva v. Dasilva, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-08-172, 2019-Ohio-2787,
¶ 5.
{¶ 21} What prompted the domestic relations court to deny each of Father's various
motions is unknown and requires this court to speculate as to the domestic relations court's
reasoning. We decline to engage in such speculation. See Wilhoite v. Kast, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2001-01-001, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5996, *23 (Dec. 31, 2001) ("[a]
meaningful review of a trial court's decision must be based on the record before us, not
-6-
Butler CA2019-07-106
mere conclusory assertions in an appellate brief"). Therefore, under these limited
circumstances, this case must be reversed and remanded to the domestic relations court
for further proceedings.
{¶ 22} Upon remand, the domestic relations court shall issue a decision that provides
a clear indication of its reasoning behind its decision to deny Husband's various motions so
that this court can, if necessary, perform a meaningful appellate review should the need
arise. This decision shall include an explanation as to how it is in the children's best interest
for Husband to pay Wife a lump sum property settlement in the amount of $9,734.77 when
the record indicates Wife has paid little, if any, child support to Husband as the children's
residential parent and legal custodian. Accordingly, without providing any opinion as to the
merit of Husband's claims raised herein, Husband's three assignments of error are
sustained to the extent outlined above.
Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
-7-