[Cite as Ramirez v. Ramirez, 2014-Ohio-3799.]
COURT OF APPEALS
TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DEISY LOPEZ RAMIREZ : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs- :
:
GEORGE L. RAMIREZ : Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division,
Case No. 12 TC 07 0282
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 28, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSE A. IBORRA JOSEPH I. TRIPODI
2859 Aaronwood Avenue, NW 114 East High Avenue
Massillon, OH 44646 New Philadelphia, OH 44663
For Tuscarawas County CSEA
ERIN ESPENSCHIED
154 Second Street, NE
New Philadelphia, OH 44663
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On December 22, 2005, appellant, George Ramirez, and appellee, Deisy
Lopez de Ramirez, were married. The couple had one child together in 2010. On July
13, 2012, appellee was served with a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by
appellant in the state of Minnesota. On same date, appellee filed a complaint for
divorce in the state of Ohio.
{¶2} On July 27, 2012, appellant filed a motion to dismiss, contesting the
jurisdiction of the Ohio court. A hearing before a magistrate was held on September 4,
2012. By decision filed November 13, 2012, the magistrate found no personal
jurisdiction over appellant; therefore, all issues of divorce and property were to be
decided by the court in Minnesota. However, Ohio had jurisdiction over the child and
therefore issues pertaining to child custody, support, and companionship were to be
decided by the court in Ohio. By judgment entry filed December 4, 2012, the trial court
adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶3} A hearing before a magistrate on child related issues was held on March
6, 2013. By decision filed March 14, 2013, the magistrate named appellee residential
parent and legal custodian of the child and issued child support orders. Appellant filed
objections, contesting jurisdiction. A hearing was held on May 6, 2013. By judgment
entry filed July 12, 2013, the trial court granted in part and overruled in part the
objections, finding more evidence was needed on the issue of monetary child support.
{¶4} An additional hearing before a magistrate was held on August 28, 2013.
By decision filed October 16, 2013, the magistrate issued orders relative to child
support. Appellant filed objections, again contesting jurisdiction. By judgment entry
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 3
filed January 30, 2014, the trial court overruled the objections and adopted the
magistrate's decision.
{¶5} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶6} "AN OHIO DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT, NOT HAVING
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OR SUBJECT MATTER IN A DIVORCE
COMPLAINT COMMITS REVERSIBLE ERROR AND ABUSES ITS DISCRETION IN
RETAINING JURISDICTION OVER CUSTODY, VISITATION, AND SUPPORT ISSUES
WHEN JURISDICTION SHOULD RESIDE IN THE JUVENILE COURT OF
TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO."
II
{¶7} "THE ISSUANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS FROM THE
DOMESTIC RELATIONS TRIAL COURT TO THE TUSCARAWAS COUNTY CSEA
WERE VOIDABLE AND ABUSED THE TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION SINCE
APPELLANT'S HOME STATE, MINNESOTA, SHOULD BE THE COLLECTING STATE
FOR CHILD SUPPORT."
I, II
{¶8} Appellant's assignments of error challenge the trial court's jurisdiction to
issue orders relative to child custody, support, and companionship. Appellant claims
jurisdiction should reside with the Juvenile Division, not the Domestic Relations Division,
and his home state of Minnesota should be the collecting state for child support. We
disagree.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 4
{¶9} Throughout the case, appellant strenuously contested the trial court's
jurisdiction. R.C. 3115.06 controls simultaneous proceedings in another state and
provides the following:
(A) A tribunal of this state may exercise jurisdiction to issue a
support order if the complaint or comparable pleading is filed in this state
after a complaint or comparable pleading requesting the issuance of a
support order is filed in another state only if all of the following apply:
(1) The complaint or comparable pleading is filed in this state
before the expiration of the time allowed in the other state for filing a
responsive pleading challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by the other
state;
(2) The contesting party timely challenges the exercise of
jurisdiction in the other state;
(3) With respect to actions to issue child support orders, this state is
the home state of the child.
(B) A tribunal of this state may not exercise jurisdiction to issue a
support order if the complaint or comparable pleading is filed in this state
before a complaint or comparable pleading requesting the issuance of a
support order is filed in another state if any of the following is the case:
(1) The complaint or comparable pleading is filed in the other state
before the expiration of the time allowed in this state for filing a responsive
pleading challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by this state.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 5
(2) The contesting party timely challenges the exercise of
jurisdiction in this state.
(3) With respect to actions to issue child support orders, the other
state is the home state of the child.
{¶10} R.C. 3115.07(A) permits continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of Ohio over a
child support order it issues "as long as the obligor, individual obligee, or child subject to
the child support order is a resident of this state, unless all of the parties who are
individuals have filed written consents with the tribunal of this state for a tribunal of
another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction." Both
R.C. 3115.06 and 3115.07 are within the Domestic Relations Chapter of the Ohio
Revised Code.
{¶11} Both appellant and appellee filed for divorce and custody orders in their
respective states, Minnesota and Ohio. In a decision filed November 13, 2012, adopted
by the trial court via judgment entry filed December 4, 2012, a magistrate recommended
the following:
1. The Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas should be
found to not have personal jurisdiction over George Ramirez. However,
the Court should be found to be the only Court under the UCCJEA, which
has jurisdiction over the child. Therefore, the Minnesota Court should
address all issues of Divorce and property of the parties and the
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 6
Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court should address matters
pertaining to custody, support, and companionship of the minor child.
{¶12} On May 17, 2013, a final decree dissolving the parties' marriage was filed
in Minnesota, and provided the following:
2. Custody, Parenting Time, Medical Coverage, Child Support,
Income Tax Exemptions, and Any Other Issues Pertaining to the
Parties' Joint Child - The State of Ohio has jurisdiction under the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to enter an Order regarding the custody,
care and control of the minor child of the parties. In the event that Ohio
declines jurisdiction over any issues pertaining to the joint child of the
parties, this Court shall have jurisdiction to enter an Order regarding such
issues and will do so at the request of either party.
{¶13} The final decree found that both parties were represented, and both
"reached an agreement resolving all issues raised by these proceedings." The final
decree specifically found "Minnesota is not the proper jurisdiction within contemplation
of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to enter an Order regarding the custody,
care and control of the minor child of the parties."
{¶14} The language of the final decree from Minnesota, coupled with the parties'
agreement/consent, vests jurisdiction on the issues of child custody, support, and
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 7
companionship with the trial court sub judice. Accordingly, we find the trial court's
jurisdiction has been satisfied under R.C. 3115.06 and 3115.07(A).
{¶15} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
{¶16} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County,
Ohio, Domestic Relations Division is hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Wise, J. concur and
Hoffman, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
SGF/sg 728
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 8
Hoffman, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part,
{¶17} I concur with the majority as to its determination an Ohio court has
jurisdiction, but respectfully dissent as to its finding the Tuscarawas County Domestic
Relations Division appropriately exercised that jurisdiction. I believe the Tuscarawas
County Juvenile Division has exclusive jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the minor
child. My reason follows.
R.C. 2151.23 provides, in pertinent part:
(A) The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction under the
Revised Code as follows:
***
(11) Subject to divisions (G), (K), and (V) of section 2301.03 of the
Revised Code, to hear and determine a request for an order for the
support of any child if the request is not ancillary to an action for divorce,
dissolution of marriage, annulment, or legal separation, a criminal or civil
action involving an allegation of domestic violence, or an action for support
brought under Chapter 3115. of the Revised Code * * *
{¶18} The Minnesota court determined all issues of divorce and property division
and correctly found Ohio had jurisdiction over the minor child and issues pertaining to
child custody, support, and companionship. Because the divorce and property issues
were settled, the issues pertaining to child custody, support, and companionship were
“not ancillary to an action for divorce, dissolution of marriage, annulment, or legal
separation * * *”. Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A)(11), I find the Tuscarawas
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2014 AP 02 0007 9
County Juvenile Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matters pertaining to the
parties’ minor child.
________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN