[Cite as Sandel v. Choma, 2017-Ohio-8301.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
LORI SANDEL C.A. No. 28476
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
DAVID CHOMA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. DR-1998-06-1433
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 25, 2017
CALLAHAN, Judge.
{¶1} David Choma (“Father”) appeals from an order of the Summit County Common
Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division. This Court reverses.
I.
{¶2} Father and Lori Sandel (“Mother”) are the divorced parents of two children.
Initially, Father was ordered to pay child support to Mother. But, due to changing circumstances
over the years, Mother was later ordered to pay child support to Father.
{¶3} Support obligations for the oldest child terminated in September 2014 because she
was 18 years old and no longer in high school. Consequently, Mother’s monthly support
obligation was reduced. The Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”)
calculated a child support overpayment of $12,587.37 as of August 14, 2014.
{¶4} In the meantime, Mother’s salary had increased. On January 29, 2015, Father
filed a motion seeking an increase in child support and reimbursement of medical expenses that
2
he had paid for the children. Mother then filed a motion seeking repayment of the overpaid child
support and reimbursement of medical expenses that she had paid for the children. Following a
motion to consolidate hearing dates and multiple motions for continuances, the matter came on
for a hearing before the magistrate on October 21, 2015.
{¶5} At that hearing, evidence was presented regarding the parties’ incomes and the
medical expenses each had paid for the children. In addition, Mother presented a copy of the
order terminating child support for the oldest child and listing the overpayment amount of
$12,587.37. Father presented a sheet on which he had calculated an amount owed to Mother, an
amount owed to him, and a net amount that he claimed Mother owed him.
{¶6} The magistrate issued a decision in May 2016 finding that Mother had previously
overpaid child support to Father, creating a credit due to Mother. The magistrate further found
that each party owed the other for medical expenses, but, after offsetting the amounts, the net
result was that Mother owed Father for medical expenses. The magistrate also found that
Mother’s child support obligation should be increased effective January 29, 2015, creating an
arrearage that she owed to Father. After offsetting the amounts each party owed the other, the
magistrate concluded that Father owed Mother a net amount of $7,320.61.
{¶7} Both sides filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. Among other things, the
parties objected to the income amounts used by the magistrate, the child support calculations,
and the net amount owed by Father to Mother.
{¶8} Prior to receiving the objections, the trial court entered an order terminating the
child support obligation for the second child because he was 18 years old and no longer in high
school. The recommendation from CSEA accompanying the order noted that, as of March 31,
2016, there was a child support overpayment of $12,409.31.
3
{¶9} In December 2016, the trial court entered its order ruling on the parties’
objections. The trial court corrected the income amounts for both parties and the resulting child
support calculations. After calculating and applying various offsetting amounts, the trial court
concluded that the net amount owed from Father to Mother was $6,523.20.
{¶10} Father filed a timely appeal, raising one assignment of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE CHILD SUPPORT OVERPAYMENT AND IN GRANTING JUDGMENT
FOR THE SAME TO LORI SANDEL.
{¶11} In his sole assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court erred in
calculating the net amount he owed to Mother. More particularly, he contends the trial court
gave Mother “double credit for child support payments.” This Court agrees.
{¶12} Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision concerning child support matters
using an abuse of discretion standard. Tustin v. Tustin, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27164, 2015-Ohio-
3454, ¶ 21. “‘A trial court will be found to have abused its discretion when its decision is
contrary to law, unreasonable, not supported by evidence, or grossly unsound.’” Id., quoting
Menke v. Menke, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27330, 2015-Ohio-2507, ¶ 8.
{¶13} Generally, a domestic relations court loses jurisdiction to modify parental rights
and responsibilities, including child support, when a child is emancipated. Berthelot v. Berthelot,
9th Dist. Summit No. 23561, 2007-Ohio-3884, ¶ 8. The court, however, retains jurisdiction to
reduce past support obligations to judgment. D. Driskill v. G.W. Driskill, 9th Dist. Summit No.
10965, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 14963, *3 (Apr. 20, 1983); see also Bercaw v. Bercaw, 45 Ohio
St.3d 160, 162 (1989). Similarly, the court retains jurisdiction to reduce an overpayment to
4
judgment. Pearson v. Pearson, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-90-12, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 155, *9 (Jan.
18, 1991). The court also possesses the equitable power to offset arrearages against
overpayments. See Mihna v. Mihna, 48 Ohio App.3d 303, 305 (8th Dist.1989); Jefferies v.
Stanzak, 135 Ohio App.3d 176, 181 (12th Dist.1999).
{¶14} In the instant matter, Mother overpaid child support before either child was
emancipated. In addition, Father filed his motion to modify child support before the second
child was emancipated. Thus, although the trial court’s decision came after both children were
emancipated, it concerned child support issues over which the trial court had continuing
jurisdiction.
{¶15} Turning to the calculation at issue, the parties presented evidence at the
magistrate’s hearing concerning Mother’s prior overpayment, medical expenses paid, and the
parties’ incomes for the relevant time periods. The parties agreed that, as of August 14, 2014,
Mother had overpaid child support in the amount of $12,587.37 as calculated by CSEA.
Beginning with that number, Father added monthly support payments of $275.32 per month and
calculated that Mother had paid a total of $16,166.53. He then calculated an amount that he
claimed Mother owed him based on the new child support amounts he was seeking and medical
expenses he had paid. By offsetting those calculations, Father concluded that Mother owed him
a net amount of $1,975.26.
{¶16} When the parties were moving their exhibits into evidence, Mother objected to
Father’s worksheet noting that she paid $292.42 per month in child support, not $275.32.
Father’s attorney conceded that the amount should be adjusted by the court in that he had made
an error in using the amount that Father receives rather than the amount that Mother pays. The
5
magistrate admitted the worksheet “for the purpose of understanding [Father’s] argument” and
“the logic of what he’s asking the [c]ourt to do.”
{¶17} Nonetheless, the magistrate used the $16,166.53 amount from Father’s worksheet
in her calculations, concluding that Mother had overpaid that amount to Father. The magistrate
calculated the other amounts owed between the parties herself. The magistrate offset the medical
expenses each owed to the other and determined that Mother owed Father $3,795.46 for medical
expenses.1 The magistrate subtracted that amount from $16,166.53 to determine the amount
owed by Father to Mother. The magistrate also found that Mother’s child support obligation
should be increased effective the date of Father’s motion, although in a lesser amount than Father
sought. Based on Mother’s increased child support obligation, the magistrate determined an
arrearage amount owed by Mother to Father. Finally, the magistrate subtracted the arrearage
amount from the earlier amount she determined Father owed to Mother in order to determine a
net amount owed from Father to Mother.
{¶18} Following the parties’ objections, the trial court determined that Mother’s
monthly support obligation was different than the amount calculated by the magistrate. For the
period from January 29, 2015 to July 31, 2015, the court determined that Mother’s support
obligation was $604.58 per month. For the period from August 1, 2015 to May 27, 2016, the
trial court determined that Mother’s support obligation was $678.67 per month. The trial court
found, however, that Mother had already paid Father $292.42 per month during those time
periods. Consequently, the trial court calculated a “balance due” for each of those periods by
subtracting the payments made from the amounts of the respective obligations. The “balance
1
The parties did not object to this conclusion by the magistrate.
6
due” for January 29, 2015 to July 31, 2015 was $1,903.17. The “balance due” for August 1,
2015 to May 27, 2016 was $3,944.70.
{¶19} The trial court concluded, “[o]ffsetting the overpayment total with the amount
owed to Father, Mother’s overall overpayment is $6,523.20” and granted judgment to Mother in
that amount. Although the trial court did not explicitly state what the “overpayment total” was in
its entry, it is clear that it utilized the $16,166.53 amount, rather than the amount as determined
by CSEA. Subtracting the amounts owed from Mother to Father for medical expenses and the
“balance[s] due” from Mother for child support from $16,166.53 yields the result reached by the
trial court. $16,166.53 - $3,795.46 (medical expenses) - $1,903.17 (balance due) - $3,944.70
(balance due) = $6,523.20.
{¶20} The trial court, however, failed to account for the fact that the $16,166.53 amount
already credited Mother for some portion of the child support payments that she had previously
made. The trial court then subtracted the full amount of those payments when calculating the
“balance due” on Mother’s child support obligation. Thus, Mother was credited twice for some
portion of the child support payments that she made.2
{¶21} By crediting Mother more than once for child support payments made, the trial
court abused its discretion. Consequently, this Court remands this matter back to the trial court
to recalculate the amount owed by Father to Mother.
{¶22} Father’s assignment of error is sustained.
2
While the credits overlap, this Court notes that there is not a strict one-to-one correspondence
in the amounts Mother was credited. The $16,166.53 figure credited Mother $275.32 per month,
while the “balance due” calculations credited Mother $292.42 per month. In addition, only some
of the months overlap in the two calculations.
7
III.
{¶23} Having sustained Father’s sole assignment of error, this Court reverses the
judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and
remands this matter 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
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.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
8
APPEARANCES:
JOHN M. DOHNER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
KEVIN S. SANDEL, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.