Franklin v. Brown

[Cite as Franklin v. Brown, 2016-Ohio-7032.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUMILLE FRANKLIN JUDGES:
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 16CA24
STANLEY BROWN
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Domestic
Relations, Case No. 2012 SUP 1114
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 26, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JEFFEREY R. STIFFLER STANLEY BROWN, PRO SE
Badnell & Dick Co., L.P.A. 478 Allison Ave
21 North Walnut Street Mansfield, Ohio 44903
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 16CA24 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Stanley Brown appeals the April 19, 2016 Judgment
Entry entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, which overruled his objections to the magistrate's January 12, 2016 Amended
Decision, and approved and adopted said decision as order of the court. Plaintiff-appellee
is Jumille Franklin.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant and Appellee are the biological parents of three children, S.B.
(DOB 8/7/96), K.B. (DOB 3/26/98) and S.H.B. (DOB 11/26/99). They have never been
married. Appellee is the residential parent of the children. On October 23, 2012, Appellee
filed a motion to establish child support. The magistrate conducted a hearing on the
motion on April 17, and May 29, 2013. Via decision filed June 10, 2013, the magistrate
recommended Appellant pay child support from August 7, 1996, through August 31, 2009.
{¶3} Appellant filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Via Judgment Entry
filed July 25, 2013, the trial court overruled Appellant's objections, and approved and
adopted the magistrate's June 10, 2013 decision. Appellant appealed the trial court's
decision, which this Court affirmed in Franklin v. Brown, 5th Dist. Richland App. No. 13
CA 75, 2014-Ohio-1668.
{¶4} On May 15, 2015, Appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to
R.C. 3111.16, requesting the trial court vacate the retroactive child support order for the
periods of time the trial court found the parties were not cohabitating. The magistrate
conducted a hearing on Appellant's motion on December 22, 2015. At the hearing,
Appellant argued he had evidence to establish he and Appellee were cohabitating during
Richland County, Case No. 16CA24 3
periods of time for which the trial court ordered him to pay child support. Appellant
asserted the same arguments in 2013. Appellant attempted to introduce the children’s
school records as evidence the parties cohabitated. The magistrate concluded the
evidence was inadmissible because Appellant failed to demonstrate he could not have
produced the documents in 2013.
{¶5} Via Decision filed January 4, 2016, the magistrate overruled Appellant's
motion. The magistrate filed an amended decision on January 12, 2016. Appellant filed
objections to the magistrate's decision. Via Judgment Entry filed April 19, 2016, the trial
court overruled Appellant's objections, and approved and adopted the magistrate's
January 12, 2016 Amended Decision as order of the court.
{¶6} It is from the April 19, 2016 Judgment Entry Appellant appeals, raising the
following assignments of error:
{¶7} “I. A TRIAL COURT ERRS WHEN IT FINDS AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT
RELIEF PURSUANT TO O.R.C. 311.16 AND CUYAHOGA V. GUTHRIE, 84 OHIO ST.3D
437 (1999), IS UNAVAILABLE WHERE A DEFENDANT ADMITS HIS PATERNITY AND
PARTICIPATES IN THE PATERNITY PROCEEDINGS.
{¶8} “II. A TRIAL COURT ERRS AS A MATTER OF LAW WHERE IT HOLDS
THAT A DEFENDANT WHO FAILS TO SECURE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO SUPPORT
HIS POSITION AT A PATERNITY HEARING CANNOT SHOW EXCUSABLE NEGLECT
LATER WHEN HE DOES SECURE SUCH EVIDENCE, THEREBY MAKING RELIEF
UNAVAILABLE TO HIM.
{¶9} “III. A TRIAL COURT ERRS AS A MATTER OF LAW WHERE IT HOLDS
THAT CERTIFIED PUBLIC RECORDS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN A PATERNITY HEARING
Richland County, Case No. 16CA24 4
BUT ARE INADMISSIBLE IN A SUBSEQUENT HEARING, CONTRA EVIDENCE RULE
902(4).”
I and II
{¶10} Appellant argues pursuant to R.C. 3111.16, the juvenile court had
continuing jurisdiction to modify or revoke a judgment or order issued under R.C. 3111.01
to R.C. 3111.19. Appellant relies upon Guthrie v. Cuyahoga County Child Support
Enforcement Agency (1999), 84 Ohio St. 3d 437, as support. We find such reliance
misplaced.
{¶11} In Guthrie, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized R.C. 3111.16 authorized
the juvenile court to relieve the judicially declared father of future child support orders
based upon DNA evidence which established he was not the father. However, the Guthrie
Court found he was not entitled to relief of his retroactive order of child support because
of his own inexcusable neglect in not appearing at the initial parentage proceeding.
{¶12} Appellant’s claim to relief from his prior child support order is based on
school records which were available to him at the original hearing before the magistrate
to establish child support. His neglect in timely presenting the same precludes him from
the retroactive modifications he seeks. The school records could have been presented
at that time.
{¶13} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon
the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction
or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp.
(1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus. Res judicata operates to bar
litigation of “ ‘all claims which were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.’ ”
Richland County, Case No. 16CA24 5
(Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 382, 653 N.E.2d at 229, quoting Natl. Amusements, Inc. v.
Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 60, 62, 558 N.E.2d 1178, 1180.
{¶14} We find the claims presently raised by Appellant were previously raised or
could have been raised at his initial hearing. Accordingly, under the doctrine of law of the
case and application of res judicata, we overrule Appellant's first and second assignments
of error.
III
{¶15} Based upon our disposition of Appellant’s first two assignments of error, we
find his third assignment of error moot.
{¶16} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Farmer, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur