[Cite as Pietrantano v. Pietrantano, 2013-Ohio-4330.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
LINDA J. PIETRANTANO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-01-002
: OPINION
- vs - 9/30/2013
:
MICHAEL A. PIETRANTANO, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. 10 DR 33851
Crossman Law Firm, LLC, F. Ann Crossman, Michelle Maciorowski, 7051 Clyo Road,
Centerville, Ohio 45459, for plaintiff-appellee
Trotter Law, LLC, Janaya L. Trotter, 3460 Reading Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229, for
defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Michael A. Pietrantano ("Husband'), appeals a decision of
the Warren County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, denying his motion
for a reduction in spousal support. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
{¶ 2} After a 36-year marriage, Husband and Linda J. Pietrantano ("Wife") filed for
Warren CA2013-01-002
divorce in July 2010. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, Husband was working
as a sales engineer in Nashville, Tennessee, and received an annual base salary of $95,000.
In addition, Husband resided in a fully-furnished apartment paid for by his then-employer.
However, on January 1, 2011, Husband's pay structure changed and Husband's annual base
salary decreased from $95,000 to $54,000 plus commissions at a rate of 18 percent and
bonuses.
{¶ 3} On February 15, 2011, a final divorce hearing was held, approximately one
month after Husband's base salary had been reduced to $54,000. At the hearing, both
Husband and Wife testified that they anticipated Husband would still be able to earn $95,000
per year even though his base salary had decreased by $41,000. The trial court issued its
final decree of divorce on April 7, 2011 (the "Final Decree"), wherein the parties agreed to an
equalization of income. As to the issue of spousal support, the Final Decree provided as
follows:
Husband's previous pay through his current employer has been a
base pay of $95,000.00 per year plus commissions. Due to internal
changes in compensation at his employment, Husband's base pay is
now $54,000.00 per year plus commissions. Commissions are paid
on a monthly basis. The intent of the parties is to equalize the income
until such time as Husband has received a total gross income in a
calendar year of $95,000.00. Until that time, Husband's spousal
support to Wife shall be one-half of the base pay which is $27,000.00
per year gross, or $2,250.00 per month gross plus one-half of the
gross commissions. * * *
Further, once Husband has earned $95,000.00 in total gross income,
which includes base pay, commissions and/or any bonuses for the
calendar year, potential income shall be imputed to Wife, and (sic) the
current minimum wage standard, which at present is $15,392.00 per
year, for purposes of calculating additional spousal support. * * *
Therefore, the parties agree * * * that Wife is entitled to 50% of the
gross amount of any income earned by Husband up to $95,000.00.
At such time as Husband earns $95,000.00, the sum of $15,392.00 in
income shall be imputed to Wife if Wife is not earning income or
earning income less than $15,392.00. * * *
-2-
Warren CA2013-01-002
Husband's current income is $54,000.00 per year base salary plus
commissions. Wife has no income. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Husband shall pay to Wife the sum
of $2,250.00 per month effective March 1, 2011 and on the first of
every month thereafter until such time as his base salary increases.
{¶ 4} On March 31, 2011, Husband was laid off from his job. The layoff occurred one
week prior to the issuance of the Final Decree but after the final hearing had been held and
the matter had been submitted to the trial court. Husband received unemployment
compensation from April 2011 until November 2011, at which time he was able to secure new
employment in Colorado as a commercial sales engineer. Husband's new employment
included an annual base salary of $65,000 plus a commission rate of "four percent of gross
margin profit dollars generated to the company." As of April 2012, Husband's year-to-date
income generated from commissions is $182.
{¶ 5} Husband's new employment does not pay housing expenses. Therefore,
Husband is now responsible for monthly rent, insurance, and utility expenses for an
apartment which he was required to furnish at his own expense. However, Husband's new
employer reimburses Husband for business mileage on his vehicle at the federal rate and for
70 percent of his business expenses.
{¶ 6} Due to the change in his salary and living expenses, Husband moved for a
reduction in spousal support on March 28, 2012. A hearing on the matter was held June 15,
2012 (the "Spousal Support Hearing"), after which the magistrate denied Husband's motion.
Upon a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the magistrate issued a decision
determining that "the change in Husband's income was contemplated at the time of the final
hearing, due to the agreement of a percentage of income being 50% of any gross income
agreed to by the parties, as opposed to an agreement of a set amount." Further, the
magistrate found that any increase in Husband's living expenses "appeared to be voluntary in
nature."
-3-
Warren CA2013-01-002
{¶ 7} Husband objected to the magistrate's decision and, on December 21, 2012, the
trial court overruled, in part, and sustained, in part, Husband's objections and otherwise
adopted the decision of the magistrate.1 The trial court found there was no substantial
change in circumstances to warrant a modification of spousal support. In reaching this
conclusion, the trial court determined that, based upon the unambiguous language of the
Final Decree—specifically the fact that Husband's annual salary was identified as $54,000
and not $95,000—any change in Husband's income had been anticipated in the wording of
the Final Decree and contemplated by the parties and the time the Final Decree was filed.
{¶ 8} From the trial court's decision, Husband appeals, raising two assignments of
error. For ease of discussion, we shall address the assignments of error out of turn.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THE
RECORD BY SOLELY RELYING ON THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION AT ODDS WITH
THE DICTATES OF OHIO CIV.R. 53.
{¶ 11} In his second assignment of error, Husband argues the trial court abused its
discretion by failing to independently review the record and relying solely upon the
magistrate's decision in contravention of Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). In support of this contention,
Husband makes the following arguments: (1) the trial court failed to discuss more than one
spousal support factor contained in R.C. 3105.18(C); (2) the trial court failed to "comment or
reference" any portion of the record "unrelated to the Magistrate's Decision"; and (3) the trial
court completely disregarded several of Husband's objections including his argument that his
increased living expenses constituted a change in circumstances. In addition, Husband
1. The trial court overruled Husband's objections relating to the motion to modify spousal support but sustained
Husband's objection that Wife should be required to pay one-half of an invoice relating to the maintenance of the
marital residence. Issues relating to the marital residence were not appealed by the parties and are not currently
before this court.
-4-
Warren CA2013-01-002
states that the "trial court had a responsibility to, at the very least, address [Husband]'s
objections and state the court's basis for its decision in sufficient detail to enable a reviewing
court to determine that the decision whether or not to modify the award is fair, equitable, and
in accordance with the law."
{¶ 12} Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) provides:
Action on objections. If one or more objections to a magistrate’s
decision are timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections. In
ruling on objections, the court shall undertake an independent review
as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has
properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the
law. Before so ruling, the court may hear additional evidence but may
refuse to do so unless the objecting party demonstrates that the party
could not, with reasonable diligence, have produced that evidence for
consideration by the magistrate.
{¶ 13} The magistrate is a subordinate officer of the trial court, not an independent
officer performing a separate function. Therefore, "a trial court may not 'merely rubber-stamp'
a magistrate's decision." McCarty v. Hayner, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 08CA8, 2009-Ohio-4540,
¶17, citing Knauer v. Keener, 143 Ohio App.3d 789, 793 (2d Dist.2001); and Roach v.
Roach, 79 Ohio App.3d 194, 207 (2d Dist.1992). A failure of the trial court to rule on the
objections and conduct an independent review of the magistrate's recommendations as
required by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) is an abuse of discretion. See Cottrell v. Cottrell, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2012-10-105, 2013-Ohio-2397, ¶ 93, citing Barrientos v. Barrientos, 196 Ohio
App.3d 570, 2011-Ohio-5734, ¶ 5 (3d Dist.). An abuse of discretion is more than an error of
law or judgment but connotes that the trial court's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unconscionable. Strain v. Strain, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2005-01-008, 2005-Ohio-6035, ¶
10.
{¶ 14} Ordinarily, a reviewing court will presume that the trial court performed an
independent review of the magistrate's decision. McCarty at ¶ 18; Cottrell at ¶ 93. Thus,
"the party asserting error bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the trial court's
-5-
Warren CA2013-01-002
failure to perform its duty of independent analysis." Id.; Cottrell at ¶ 93, citing Gilleo v. Gilleo,
3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-10-07, 2010-Ohio-5191, ¶ 46. "[S]imply because a trial court adopted
the magistrate's decision does not mean that the court failed to exercise independent
judgment." Id. A trial court may adopt a magistrate's decision in whole or in part pursuant to
Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b) so long as the trial court fully agrees with the magistrate's findings "after
weighing the evidence itself and fully substituting its judgment for that of the [magistrate]." In
re Dunn, 101 Ohio App.3d 1, 8 (12th Dist.1995), citing DeSantis v. Soller, 70 Ohio App.3d
226, 232 (10th Dist.1990).
{¶ 15} Husband first argues that the trial court's failure to address the spousal support
factors enumerated in R.C. 3105.18(C) is evidence of the trial court's failure to undertake an
independent review of the record and comply with Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
{¶ 16} "In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and reasonable, and in
determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment, and duration of spousal support," the
trial court must consider the 13 factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) and any other factor the
trial court finds relevant. R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). However, in order to modify a spousal support
order, the trial court must determine that the circumstances of either party have changed and
the divorce decree must contain a provision specifically authorizing the trial court to modify
the amount or terms of spousal support. R.C. 3105.18(E) and (F). Since the trial court did
not find a change in circumstances in this case, it was not required to discuss the R.C.
3105.18(C)(1) factors in its judgment entry denying appellant's motion for reduction of
spousal support. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 03 MA 3, 2004-Ohio-3045,
¶ 30; Hill v. Hill, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2004-08-066 and CA2004-09-069, 2005-Ohio-
5370, ¶ 5 (analyzing first whether a substantial change in circumstances has occurred to
warrant modification and then determining whether modification was appropriate under R.C.
3105.18(C)). Therefore, the fact that the trial court did not address these factors is not
-6-
Warren CA2013-01-002
evidence of its failure to independently review the record.
{¶ 17} Husband next argues that the trial court's failure to "comment or reference" any
portion of the record beyond the Final Decree and the magistrate's decision sufficiently
demonstrates the trial court's lack of an independent review of the record.
{¶ 18} The fact that the trial court did not cite to any specific portion of the transcript or
any exhibit admitted into evidence beyond these relied upon by the magistrate does not
demonstrate that the trial court failed to undertake an independent review as to the objected
matters. Cottrell, 2013-Ohio-2397 at ¶ 94. "'While citing such material would tend to
demonstrate that the trial court conducted the requisite independent review, there is no
requirement in Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) that the trial court do so.'" Id., quoting Hampton v.
Hampton, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2007-03-033, 2008-Ohio-868, ¶ 17.
{¶ 19} Finally, Husband contends that the trial court's complete disregard of several of
his objections demonstrates the trial court's failure to comply with Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) as
required. Specifically, Husband contends that the trial court "wholly ignored" his arguments
that (1) both Husband and Wife did not contemplate a change in Husband's income at the
time of the final hearing; (2) Husband's living expenses had increased; and (3) income should
be imputed to Wife to equalize the parties' income.
{¶ 20} As stated above, Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) provides that, if one or more objections to a
magistrate's decision are timely filed, "the court shall rule on those objections," and, in so
ruling, "the court shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters[.]"
Contrary to Husband's argument, this rule does not require the trial court to address each
and every portion of an objection raised by the party, but to rule on each objection.
{¶ 21} In his "Objection to Magistrate's Decision," Husband provides as his first
objection: "[Husband's] request for a reduction in spousal support should have been
granted." Within this objection, Husband argued that a substantial change in circumstances
-7-
Warren CA2013-01-002
had occurred due to Husband's decrease in income and increase in living expenses.
Husband further claimed in his first objection that the parties did not contemplate these
changes at the time of the Final Decree and that income should be imputed to Wife so as to
truly equalize the parties' incomes.
{¶ 22} In its "Entry Overruling in Part and Sustaining in Part Objections to the
Magistrate's Decision," the trial court discussed Husband's "first objection," stating that
Husband "argues that he makes considerably less money now than was contemplated by the
Judgment Decree of Divorce" and that he "claims that he is unable to pay his bills after
paying Wife $2,708 per month in spousal support." After an albeit brief and cursory review of
the arguments raised by Husband, the trial court overruled Husband's first objection in its
entirety.
{¶ 23} While we acknowledge that it would be a better practice for the trial court to
more fully discuss and review all aspects of a party's objections, we find that the trial court
ruled on the entirety of Husband's first objection in compliance with Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). As
such, we find that Husband has not affirmatively demonstrated that the trial court failed to
conduct an independent review of the record. The fact that the trial court did not reference
Husband's arguments or give as great a depth to the objection as it could have, and perhaps
should have, does not establish that the trial court violated Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) in ruling on the
2
objections and undertaking an independent review of the record.
{¶ 24} Based upon the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by allegedly failing to conduct an independent review of the record in contravention of Civ.R.
2. We additionally note that the trial court further demonstrated its independent review of the record by
sustaining Husband's objection that he be required to fully pay an invoice relating to maintenance of the marital
home. The trial court found that the magistrate was incorrect in ruling that Husband must pay the invoice and
altered the magistrate's award to require Wife to pay one-half of the invoice. Though the invoice issue was not
raised on appeal, the trial court's sustaining of Husband's objection indicates that it independently reviewed the
record in ruling on all of Husband's objections. This supports the argument that the trial court did more than just
"rubber-stamp" the magistrate's decision.
-8-
Warren CA2013-01-002
53(D)(4)(d). Accordingly, Husband's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 25} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 26} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT.
{¶ 27} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the trial court erred in finding
that there was no substantial change in circumstances to warrant a reduction in his spousal
support obligation and that such a finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 28} "A trial court has broad discretion in determining a spousal support award,
including whether or not to modify an existing award." Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2009-03-018, 2010-Ohio-597, ¶ 16, citing Strain v. Strain, 12th Dist. Warren
No. CA2005-01-008, 2005-Ohio-6035 at ¶ 10. Thus, absent an abuse of discretion, a
spousal support award or modification will not be disturbed on appeal. Id.
{¶ 29} "In exercising its discretion to modify a spousal support award, a trial court must
determine: '(1) that the divorce decree contained a provision specifically authorizing the court
to modify the spousal support, and (2) that the circumstances of either party have changed.'"
Hutchinson at ¶ 17; Strain at ¶ 11; R.C. 3105.18(F). The party seeking modification of a
spousal support obligation bears the burden of showing that the modification is warranted.
Hutchinson at ¶ 17; Hill, 2005-Ohio-5370 at ¶ 5.
{¶ 30} In determining whether the trial court's finding was supported by the greater
amount of credible evidence, this court "weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether, in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of
justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Schneble v. Stark, 12th
Dist. Warren Nos. CA2011-06-063 and CA2011-06-064, 2012-Ohio-3130, ¶ 67; Eastley v.
Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohi-2179, ¶ 12. "[E]very reasonable presumption must
-9-
Warren CA2013-01-002
be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts." Volkman at ¶ 21. "If the evidence
is susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that
interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment * * *." Id.
{¶ 31} Neither party disputes that the trial court was authorized to modify the spousal
support obligation in this case. The parties' divorce decree granted the trial court continuing
3
jurisdiction to modify the amount of spousal support throughout its duration. The dispute in
this case centers on the trial court's determination that the change in circumstances
requirement was not met and, specifically, that the change in circumstances was not
substantial and had been contemplated by the parties at the time of the Final Decree.
{¶ 32} A change in circumstances "includes, but it not limited to, any increase or
involuntary decrease in the party's wages, salary, bonuses, living expenses, or medical
expenses." R.C. 3105.18(F); Strain, 2005-Ohio-6035 at ¶ 13. The change in circumstances
must be (1) substantial, making the existing award no longer reasonable and appropriate; (2)
not purposely brought about by the moving party; and (3) not contemplated by the parties or
the court at the time the parties entered into the prior agreement. Strain at ¶ 13;
Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433, 2009-Ohio-1222, ¶ 31-32; R.C.
3105.18(F).
{¶ 33} At the Spousal Support Hearing, Wife testified that she believed the spousal
support award in the Final Decree was based upon a "tier" system. First, Wife was to receive
one-half of any income earned by Husband below $95,000. Next, Wife was to receive one-
half of any income earned by Husband above $95,000 less minimum wage (approximately
$15,000 at the time of the Final Decree) which would be imputed to Wife. Finally, Wife was
3. A portion of the Final Decree provides:
The parties further agree that the spousal support shall be subject to the continuing
jurisdiction of the Court and modifiable upon a change of circumstances which shall
include cohabitation with an unrelated third party.
- 10 -
Warren CA2013-01-002
to receive one-half of any bonuses and commission earned by Husband. During his
testimony, Husband agreed that this was the structure of the spousal support award as
contained in the Final Decree.
{¶ 34} The Final Decree listed Husband's salary as $54,000 per year plus
commissions and provided that, in following the intent of the parties to equalize their income,
Husband shall pay Wife one-half of his base salary, or $27,000, and one-half of his
commissions "until such time as Husband has received a total gross income in a calendar
year of $95,000.00." Contrary to Husband's contentions, there is no indication in the Final
Decree that Husband will make $95,000 per year or that a change in circumstances would
occur if Husband failed to make $95,000 per year. Rather, the decree provides that, once
Husband earns $95,000 in total gross income in one year, his spousal support payments will
be offset by an imputation of income to Wife.
{¶ 35} If Husband's argument that the parties anticipated Husband would make
$95,000 per year is accepted as true, then there would have been no reason why the Final
Decree would not have provided that Husband pay to Wife the sum of $47,500, or one-half of
his $95,000 base salary. Instead the Final Decree provides that Wife is entitled to one-half of
any income earned by Husband up to $95,000. Though Husband argues that the trial court's
use of $54,000 as his base salary was simply a "mistake" on the part of the trial court, we
disagree and find no support for this conclusion in the record. We find the intent of the
parties as set forth in the Final Decree was to equalize their incomes, whether Husband's
income be more or less than $95,000 per year, and that it was contemplated by the parties
and the trial court that Husband's salary could be less than $95,000 per year.
{¶ 36} Thus, the unambiguous spousal support language contained in the Final
Decree provided that the parties would equalize their incomes by Husband providing Wife
one-half of his income until he reaches a yearly income of $95,000, at which time minimum
- 11 -
Warren CA2013-01-002
wage income would be imputed to Wife. The fact that Husband's income has changed from
$54,000 per year plus commissions to $65,000 per year plus a lower percentage of
commissions does not alter the language of the Final Decree or demonstrate a substantial
change in circumstances.
{¶ 37} Husband also contends that a change in circumstances occurred in this case
due to an increase in his living expenses. Specifically, Husband argues that his monthly
income after his spousal support obligation is $2,708 while his monthly expenses, not
including groceries and health insurance, total approximately $4,722. Thus, Husband argues
that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred based upon an increase in his living
expenses. Within this argument, Husband also asserts that the trial court failed to address
this argument pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
{¶ 38} As we have previously discussed above, though the trial court did not
specifically address Husband's contention that his increased living expenses constituted a
change in circumstances, the trial court overruled Husband's entire first objection which
included the increased living expenses argument. Therefore, the trial court complied with
Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). The remaining issues before us, then, are whether the trial court abused
its discretion in overruling that objection and whether such a decision was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 39} The evidence from the June 15, 2012 Spousal Support Hearing provided that
Husband lived in a fully furnished apartment paid for by his former employer at the time the
Final Decree was filed. Husband's new employer, however, does not supply such a living
arrangement and Husband has been required to pay monthly rent, insurance, utilities, and
furniture expenses since November 2012. During the Spousal Support Hearing, Husband
provided the trial court with an exhibit setting forth a comparison of his expenses at the time
of the Final Decree with his current expenses. As part of his current expenses, Husband
- 12 -
Warren CA2013-01-002
included spousal support, which is not a living or medical expense as provided by R.C.
3105.18(F)(1). Husband also failed to include the mileage reimbursement he receives from
his current employer as well as the 70 percent of business expenses that his employer
reimburses.
{¶ 40} In removing the spousal support from Husband's current expenses, we find that
Husband's monthly expenses at the time of divorce were $2,572 and his current monthly
expenses, not including groceries and health insurance, total approximately $3,295. We find
that such an increase in Husband's monthly expenses, less than $1,000 per month, does not
constitute a substantial change in circumstances in this case and note that the $3,258 figure
would be further reduced when Husband receives reimbursements from his employer. See
Mandelbaum, 2009-Ohio-1222 at ¶ 32 (providing that a substantial change in circumstances
is one that is drastic, material, and significant).
{¶ 41} Based upon the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Husband's motion for reduction of spousal support and that such a determination
was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The change in Husband's yearly
income and the minimal increase in his living expenses do not constitute substantial changes
in circumstances as contemplated by R.C. 3105.18(F).
{¶ 42} Accordingly, Husband's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 43} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
- 13 -