Sandel v. Choma , 2012 Ohio 3781 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Sandel v. Choma, 2012-Ohio-3781.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
LORI S. SANDEL C.A. No. 25995
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
DAVID CHOMA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 1998-06-1433
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: August 22, 2012
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, David Choma, appeals an order of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. This Court reverses.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Choma and Appellee, Lori Sandel (fka Choma), divorced in 1998 after four
years of marriage. They are the parents of two children who were toddlers at the time of the
divorce. As part of the divorce decree, the parties entered into a shared parenting agreement that
provided that Mr. Choma would pay $522.29 per month for each child in child support. Over the
years, the parties’ incomes increased at different rates, and Mr. Choma’s child support obligation
was modified twice. In 2003, the trial court modified his obligation to $375 per month for each
child. Later the same year, the parties agreed to another modification that reduced Mr. Choma’s
child support obligation to $209.88 per month for each child, including poundage. In February
2009, Mr. Choma moved to terminate his child support obligation and for an order requiring Ms.
2
Sandel to pay child support instead. The trial court terminated his obligation to pay child
support, but upon finding that the parties had essentially equal incomes, did not order Ms. Sandel
to pay.
{¶3} On August 10, 2009, Mr. Choma filed the motion that is at issue in this appeal,
requesting that the trial court order Ms. Sandel to pay child support in light of her increased
income. Hearing on the matter was continued until May 2010 and, when a second day of
testimony was required, the magistrate scheduled a hearing one month later. The magistrate
issued a decision on March 30, 2011, recommending an amendment of the shared parenting plan
effective April 1, 2011, and an award of child support from Ms. Sandel effective on the same
date. The trial court entered judgment on the magistrate’s decision in accordance with Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(e)(i). Mr. Choma objected to the magistrate’s decision, arguing that although the
amendment to the shared parenting plan was effective April 1, 2011, the effective date of the
child support award should have been the date he filed the motion to modify. The trial court
overruled his objection, and Mr. Choma appealed.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SETTING THE STARTING DATE FOR THE
MODIFICATION CHILD SUPPORT AS APRIL 1, 2011, AND NOT AUGUST
[10], 2009.
{¶4} Mr. Choma’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court should have
established the date that he filed the motion to modify child support as the effective date of Ms.
Sandel’s child support obligation.
{¶5} When a trial court modifies child support, the change should be effective as of the
date that the motion to modify was filed unless “special circumstance[s]” justify a different date.
3
State ex rel. Draiss v. Draiss, 70 Ohio App.3d 418, 421 (9th Dist.1990). “If the effective date of
the order modifying support payments is not deemed effective on the date the motion requesting
such modification is filed, [the moving party] is penalized for the time required to have his
motion heard and determined by the trial court.” Kuntz v. Kuntz, 10th Dist. No. 78AP-831, 1979
WL 209183, *4 (July 5, 1979). In other words, “a retroactive modification is appropriate to
protect the parties from the delays that are inherent in our legal system.” State ex rel. Mullaney
v. Mullaney, 9th Dist. No. 2628-M, 1997 WL 679904, *2 (Oct. 22, 1997). This general rule is
widely accepted in Ohio. See generally Zamos v. Zamos, 11th Dist. No. 2002-P-0085, 2004-
Ohio-2310, ¶ 13. This Court has applied the rule consistently and, more recently, has
characterized it as “presumption of retroactivity” that may be “overcome” by facts in the record
that demonstrate special circumstances. Cameron v. Cameron, 9th Dist. No. 10CA0064-M,
2011-Ohio-3884, ¶ 7.
{¶6} When a trial court selects a different effective date for a child support
modification, that date must have a “reasonable basis” and bear some significance in the
underlying litigation. In re P.J.H., 196 Ohio App.3d 122, 2011-Ohio-5970, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.2011).
See also Draiss at 421. “The alternative of selecting an effective date for an ordered
modification because it coincides with a ‘significant date in the litigation,’ implies a significance
in relation to the grounds for the modification ordered.” (Internal citation omitted.) Bell v. Bell,
2d Dist. No. 23714, 2010-Ohio-5276, ¶ 23. Although a trial court has the discretion to select a
different effective date within these parameters, it must state the reason for doing so. Scheibert
v. Scheibert, 9th Dist. No. 2737, 1992 WL 393161, *3 (Dec. 30, 1992). For example, this Court
has concluded that when a trial court’s order states that “the date of the hearing is more
appropriate than the date of the filing[,]” it “fails to provide an adequate basis for rejecting
4
retroactive modification.” Dzeba v. Dzeba, 9th Dist. No. 16225, 1993 WL 498181, *4 (Dec. 1,
1993). Compare Tomasik v. Tomasik, 9th Dist. No. 17822, 1997 WL 45055, *4.
{¶7} In this case, although Mr. Choma filed his motion to modify support on August
10, 2009, the trial court made it effective on April 1, 2011, to coincide with the amendment of
the parties’ shared parenting agreement. The trial court identified the alternative date, but it did
not explain its reasons for doing so. Because the trial court’s judgment does not “provide an
adequate basis for rejecting retroactive modification,” this Court must reverse and remand for the
trial court to make this determination. See Dzeba at *4. Mr. Choma’s assignment of error is
sustained.
III.
{¶8} Mr. Choma’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is reversed and this matter is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed
and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
5
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
MOORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JOHN M. DOHNER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
MORA LOWRY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.