Paeltz v. Paeltz

[Cite as Paeltz v. Paeltz, 2022-Ohio-3964.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
SANDRA R. PAELTZ, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-05-031
: OPINION
- vs - 11/7/2022
:
EARL COY PAELTZ, :
Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. 19DR40910
Moskowitz & Moskowitz, LLC, and James H. Moskowitz, for appellee.
Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker, L.P.A., and Barry A. Spaeth, for appellant.
PIPER, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Earl Paeltz ("Father"), appeals from a decision of the Warren
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, following a postdecree
petition involving his divorce from appellee, Sandra Paeltz ("Mother").
{¶2} Mother and Father divorced in 2019. At the time of their divorce, they had
been married approximately 14 years and had two minor children, one born March 3, 2007,
and the other born August 10, 2009. The parties entered into a shared parenting plan
Warren CA2022-05-031
regarding the care of their children. The parties also entered into a separation agreement
settling and providing for the division of all property and marital obligations. At the time,
Father had income of $215,000 per year and Mother had income of $123,364 per year. The
parties agreed there would be no child support.1 The trial court entered a final decree of
divorce on July 9, 2019.
{¶3} On November 16, 2020, Mother filed a petition for an ex-parte civil protection
order against Father for the benefit of the minor children due to an altercation between
Father and the older child. The ex-parte order was granted and set for a full hearing on
December 23, 2020.
{¶4} Prior to the full hearing, Father filed a motion to modify the shared parenting
plan. Father alleged that Mother was not supportive when it came to disciplining the
children. He further stated that his attempts to discipline his older child resulted in Mother
filing the ex-parte order against him.
{¶5} In response, Mother filed a motion to reallocate parental rights and sought to
terminate the shared parenting plan or otherwise modify the parenting time schedule.
Mother alleged that Father had been in a physical altercation with the older child and was
physically and emotionally abusive with the children.
{¶6} The record shows that Mother's request for a civil protection order on behalf
of the children was denied. However, Father’s motion to modify the shared parenting plan
and Mother’s motion to reallocate parental rights and terminate the shared parenting plan
continued with both parties filing additional motions. Eventually, the court held hearings on
Father's request for a more routine schedule with the children, coparenting classes, and
1. The parties' separation agreement provided that if Wife were to receive child support from Husband, the
amount would be, essentially, offset with an award that Wife pay Husband spousal support up to a defined
annual income level.
-2-
Warren CA2022-05-031
family counseling, in addition to Mother's request to terminate the shared parenting plan.
{¶7} In the hearings held on August 12, 2021, and October 5, 2021, the parties
presented testimony concerning the strained relationship between Father and the children.
The testimony included allegations of excessive discipline or physicality, including at least
one instance in which the police were called. In addition, Mother testified that Father has
not paid any of the children's expenses since November of 2020.2 She also testified that
Father informed her that he was going to switch his (and the children's) health insurance
plan to a high deductible plan so that she will incur additional expenses. Mother stated that
since she cannot seek child support from Father, she was requesting that Father be
responsible for the children's uncovered health care expenses.
{¶8} Father testified that he agreed to pay more marital debt in the separation
agreement in exchange for the zero child support order. Father disagreed with Mother's
testimony concerning his motivations for switching to a high deductible insurance plan.
Although he recognized that a switch would disadvantage Mother, he stated that his
motivation was not purely "so she gets stuck." Father stated that the reason for the switch
was because he and the children do not have many medical bills and thought the switch
would financially benefit himself to "catch up" for the sacrifices he made in the divorce.
{¶9} The record shows that Mother is employed at Cigna as a pharmacist working
forty hours per week for $108,160 per year. Father is employed in sales at PTC, Inc. where
he has a base salary of $111,750.08 per year, plus commissions and bonuses. Averaging
his income from 2018-2020, the magistrate found Father earns $279,832.08 per year.
{¶10} The magistrate's decision was issued on November 10, 2021. The magistrate
found it was in the children's best interest to terminate the shared parenting plan and name
2. Mother testified at the October 5, 2021, hearing that Father had not paid any child related expenses since
the filing of the protection order.
-3-
Warren CA2022-05-031
Mother the residential parent and legal custodian of the children. Father was provided
parenting time, but it was less than the amount previously agreed upon in the shared
parenting agreement. The magistrate found Father should continue to have a zero child
support order based upon its understanding of the parties' separation agreement and also
because it was going to make him responsible for the children's expenses. In pertinent part
the court stated:
Based on Father not paying child support, this Magistrate finds
effective December 16, 2020, it is in the children's best interest
for Father to be responsible for 100% of the children's
expenses, including but not limited to school fees including
uniform fees and equipment, haircuts, clothing, monthly cell
phone bill, driver's education class, car insurance, AP fees, and
testing fees.
{¶11} On November 12, 2021, Father filed a general objection to the magistrate's
decision. While Father had previously been represented by counsel, he filed this general
objection pro se. Mother filed a motion to dismiss the objection for lack of specificity. On
March 21, 2022, Father filed several pages in the form of a letter addressed to the trial court
stating reasons why he disagreed with the magistrate's decision.3 The record shows the
parties appeared for a hearing on Father's general objection, however, the transcript of that
proceeding was not filed for consideration by this court. On April 11, 2022, the trial court
granted Mother's motion to dismiss the objection for lack of specificity, overruled Father's
objection, and adopted the magistrate's decision. Father now appeals, raising the following
assignment of error for review:
{¶12} THE WARREN COUNTY, OHIO DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT APPELLANT FATHER MUST PAY ALL THE
CHILDREN'S UNCOVERED HEALTH CARE, SCHOOL AND ACTIVITY EXPENSES.
3. Handwritten in the top margin of the first page is the case name, case number, and the word "Objection."
-4-
Warren CA2022-05-031
{¶13} In his sole assignment of error, Father argues the trial court erred by ordering
him to pay for the children's uncovered health care, school, and activity expenses.
{¶14} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii) provides that "an objection to a magistrate's decision
shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection." Should a party fail to
properly object, that party has waived the right of appeal except for plain error. Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b)(iv); Roberts v. Roberts, 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2012-07-015 and CA2012-
07-016, 2013-Ohio-1733, ¶ 19; Mustard v. Mustard, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2009-06-
078 and CA2009-09-118, 2010-Ohio-2175, ¶ 28.
{¶15} In response to the magistrate's decision, Father filed a general objection to
the trial court. It stated that the magistrate's decision was "arbitrary, capricious, and was
against the manifest weight of the evidence." Father further stated that "the Magistrate's
decision was an abuse of discretion, made erroneous findings of fact, and was not in the
minor children's best interests, and erroneously penalized Father financially because of the
parties prior agreed upon divorce settlement proceedings."
{¶16} The trial court dismissed Father's objection for not filing a "specific, proper
objection that is required by law." However, the trial court stated that Father's objection
would have been without merit even if he had filed a proper objection. Apparently, through
discussions with the court at the hearing on Father's general objection, Father advised that
his "principal objection is to the requirement that he pay a laundry list of expenses for the
boys in lieu of support, which he regards as essentially a 'blank check' that could ruin him
financially." In its entry, the trial court noted that Mother had been sending Father a list of
expenses totaling approximately $500 per month. Considering the record before it, the trial
court found Father's objection would have been without merit.
{¶17} In his appellate brief, Father does not address the trial court's decision
granting Mother's motion to dismiss the general objection. He argues the trial court's
-5-
Warren CA2022-05-031
decision ordering him to pay the children's expenses was an abuse of discretion and
maintains, among other things, that the magistrate made no factual findings to support the
change. Mother responded by raising the relevant procedural history and arguing that
Father's assignment of error was limited to plain error review. In his reply brief, Father
argued that the letter he filed four months after his general objection should be considered
his supplemental objection.4 He further argues that even if this case was limited to plain
error review, it would indeed amount to plain error.
{¶18} We find Father's argument is without merit. It is well established that any new
arguments raised in appellants' reply brief are deemed waived and are not subject to review.
Phillips v. McCarthy, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2015-08-017, 2016-Ohio-2994, ¶ 25. Father
chose not to argue that the trial court erred by dismissing his general objection based upon
lack of specificity. Father claims that the letter is a supplemental objection to his general
objection. However, since the trial court dismissed Father's objection based upon lack of
specificity and Father failed to contest that finding in his opening brief, this court's review is
limited to plain error, which is not readily invoked in civil cases. Roberts, 2013-Ohio-1733at ¶ 19; New Holland v. Murphy, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 19CA32, 2021-Ohio-2671, ¶ 22-
23. Moreover, although he claims these issues were raised and argued before the trial
court, Father failed to include a transcript of that proceeding in this appeal. Dasilva v.
Dasilva, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-08-172, 2019-Ohio-2787, ¶ 4 (appellant has the
burden to order a written transcript for this court to use in our review of the lower court's
decision). When the portions of a transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are
omitted from the record, a reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus the court has
no choice but to presume the regularity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm. Id.
4. Father does refer to his March 21 letter as his "supplemental objection," but does not raise any argument
concerning the dismissal of his specific objection until his reply brief.
-6-
Warren CA2022-05-031
Therefore, for the reasons addressed above and because the trial court did not err, let alone
commit plain error, we find Father's arguments are without merit.
{¶19} Nevertheless, we agree with the trial court's analysis that even if Father had
specifically raised this objection, it would be without merit. In the case sub judice, the parties
had shared parenting of the children. However, the trial court terminated the shared
parenting plan following the final hearings. The magistrate found Mother had a salary of
$108,160 per year while Father had earnings of $279,832.08 per year. Despite terminating
the shared parenting plan and naming Mother as the residential parent and custodian of the
children, the magistrate did not award Mother child support. Rather, the magistrate
considered the parties' separation agreement and also noted that Father was going to be
responsible for the children's expenses.
{¶20} Although Father claims that the separation agreement and shared parenting
plan prohibit the trial court from reallocating responsibility for child-related expenses, review
of the relevant documents reveals that argument is misguided. While the terms of the
agreements set Father's child support obligation at zero, it clearly includes provisions for
the financial support of the children. The language of the shared parenting plan and the
separation agreement include language that contemplates a future modification of the
financial provisions related to the children. As stated in the shared parenting plan:
The parties acknowledge that this Plan may be modified either
by written agreement of the parties, or by Order of this Court.
Each party acknowledges and understands that she or he has
the right to seek modification of this Plan by appropriate Motion
to this Court.
The Divorce Decree further provides:
In the event that the Shared Parenting Plan is terminated, all
financial agreements set forth in the plan shall survive the
termination of the plan until and unless the Court modifies said
provisions.
-7-
Warren CA2022-05-031
{¶21} Consistent with their original agreement, the shared parenting plan at issue
was terminated and Mother was named the residential parent and sole custodian. While
Father complains about his obligation to pay child-related expenses, he ignores the fact that
the prior order was terminated, and the circumstances are very different from the time of
the original divorce decree. Father earns a significant income, does not pay child support,
and has a much more limited parenting schedule with his children. The trial court indicated
that Mother provided a list of child-related expenses totaling approximately $500 per month.
Following review, we find this would not amount to an abuse of discretion. Father's sole
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶22} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and BYRNE, J., concur.
-8-