Pieczonka v. Pieczonka ( 2017 )

[Cite as Pieczonka v. Pieczonka, 2017-Ohio-8899.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
TODD A. PIECZONKA, : APPEAL NO. C-170173
TRIAL NO. DR1201697
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
JOANNA N. PIECZONKA, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 8, 2017
David F. Robertson, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Cathy R. Cook and Ethan J. Arenstein, for Defendant-Appellee.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ZAYAS, Judge.
{¶1} Todd Pieczonka (“father”) appeals the trial court’s March 24, 2017
decision adopting the magistrate’s January 4, 2017 decision regarding his motion to
modify an award of child support to Joanna Pieczonka (“mother”) for their minor
children. Because we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the
magistrate’s decision, we reverse its judgment and remand the cause for further
proceedings.
Background
{¶2} Father and mother married in 2002 and had two children. Father filed
for divorce on August 24, 2012, and the trial court granted the divorce on August 15,
2013. As part of the divorce decree, the parties entered into a shared-parenting plan
that ordered father to pay child support to mother for their minor children.
{¶3} On August 19, 2015, father filed a motion to modify the shared-
parenting plan. Included in that motion was a “request that child support be
reviewed.” On November 14, 2016, the parties modified the shared-parenting plan in
an agreed entry that settled all of the parties’ then-disputed matters aside from child
support. The magistrate held hearings on child support on November 8, 2016, and
November 23, 2016.
{¶4} Following the hearings, the magistrate issued a decision with findings
of fact and conclusions of law on January 4, 2017. In her findings of fact, the
magistrate noted that mother’s annual income had increased approximately 35
percent from $23,814 in 2013 to approximately $32,000 for 2015 and 2016. The
magistrate also noted that mother had remarried and that mother was now
responsible for the children’s health insurance. The magistrate found that a
downward deviation in child support was in the children’s best interest. The
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
magistrate made the child support order “effective Nov. 14, 2016, the date of the
Agreed Entry that actually modified the Shared Parenting Plan,” finding that “[p]rior
to that entry, there is no evidence that there was a change in circumstance since the
original order was issued.”
{¶5} Father filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, claiming, among
other things, that the magistrate erred in choosing November 14, 2016, as the
effective date of the child-support order because she “over looked [sic] * * * dramatic
changes” to the parties’ circumstances that occurred prior to that date. The trial
court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision on March 24,
2017. Father timely appealed.
Assignments of Error
{¶6} Father brings two assignments of error. The first is that the trial court
“abused its discretion in failing to make an independent review of the magistrate’s
decision.” The second is that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion in failing to
identify obvious errors in the magistrate’s decision and make the modification of the
child support order retroactive to the date of the filing of the motion to modify.” We
address father’s second assignment of error first.
Standard of Review
{¶7} “The standard of review for a trial court’s decision to adopt, or not to
adopt, a magistrate’s decision, is whether the trial court abused its
discretion. * * * [A]n abuse of discretion connotes an arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unconscionable decision by the trial court. Unreasonable means that no sound
reasoning process supports the decision.” In re Estate of Knowlton, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-050728, 2006-Ohio-4905, ¶ 43.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶8} A court’s reasoning process is not “sound,” and is therefore
unreasonable, when it relies on incorrect facts. See Trenkamp v. Trenkamp, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-000203, 2000 WL 1760504, *5 (Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the trial
court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision where no evidence
supported the magistrate’s conclusions); Chuang Dev. L.L.C. v. Raina, 2017-Ohio-
3000, __ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.), quoting PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Ramsey, 2014-
Ohio-3519, 17 N.E.3d 629, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.), quoting Thomas v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio
App.3d 401, 2008-Ohio-1720, 892 N.E.2d 454, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (“ ‘An abuse of
discretion may be found when the trial court * * * “relies on clearly erroneous
findings of fact.” ’ ”).
The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion
{¶9} The magistrate decided that the modification of child support should
be made retroactive to November 14, 2016, the date of the agreed entry. In choosing
this date, the magistrate stated, “Prior to [November 14, 2016], there is no evidence
that there was a change of circumstance since the original order was issued.”
However, the reliance that there was “no evidence” of “a change of circumstance”
from August 15, 2013, to November 14, 2016, is contradicted by the findings of fact.
For example, the magistrate noted that mother’s personal income had increased
approximately 35 percent between the time of the divorce and the time of the agreed
entry.
{¶10} Because the nexus relied upon by the magistrate to determine the date
that the modification was to commence was clearly erroneous, the trial court abused
its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision. We therefore sustain father’s
second assignment of error. Having sustained this assignment of error, we need not
consider his first assignment of error. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Conclusion
{¶11} Because the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the
magistrate’s decision, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this case for
the trial court to consider the objections consistent with the law and this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., and MYERS, J., concur.
Please note:
This court has recorded its own entry this date.
5