Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In the Matter of Palcisco

December 24, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF GARY J. PALCISCO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, AND JAMIE L. PALCISCO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.


Civil Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 1999 DS 189.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Diane V. Grendell, J.

Cite as In re Palcisco,

OPINION

Judgment: Affirmed.

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Gary J. Palcisco, appeals the Judgment Order of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, ordering him to pay child support/health care on behalf of his disabled adult child. The issue before this court is whether a trial court loses jurisdiction to make a child support order on behalf of a mentally or physically disabled adult child after the support provided for in the parties' dissolution agreement lapses. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.

{¶2} On June 9, 1999, Gary Palcisco's marriage to defendant-appellee, Jamie L. Palcisco, was terminated by a Decree of Dissolution. According to the Amended Separation Agreement, Jamie was awarded custody of the parties' minor child (d.o.b. 12/15/1991) and Gary was ordered to pay child support, with the court having "continuing jurisdiction over child support."

{¶3} On February 4, 2009, the domestic relations court approved an Administrative Order of the Trumbull County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), modifying the child support order. The Administrative Order contained the following provision: "The duty of support imposed pursuant to this order shall continue beyond the child's eighteenth birthday only if the child continuously attends a recognized and accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child's eighteenth birthday. The order shall not remain in effect after the child reaches age nineteen."

{¶4} On January 19, 2011, Jamie filed a Motion with the domestic relations court, asking the court "to re-establish child support pursuant to Section 3119.86 of the Ohio Revised Code." Jamie stated that the child in question "is physically disabled and incapable of supporting or maintaining himself," and that court ordered child support "was terminated on December 15, 2010."

{¶5} On October 18, 2011, the domestic relations court entered a Judgment Order, finding that it retained jurisdiction to order child support: "This court finds that the child Zachary although over the age of majority is not emancipated. His disability prevents him from ever reaching the status of emancipation. He remains a minor and the Domestic Court retains jurisdiction over child support regardless of a guardianship established in Probate Court."

{¶6} On March 19, 2012, the domestic relations court entered a final order, overruling the parties' objections and adopting all prior Magistrate's Decisions, determining child support, insurance, and tax dependency allocation issues.

{¶7} On April 4, 2012, Gary filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Gary raises the following assignments of error:

{¶8} "[1.] The Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas Division of Domestic Relations ("domestic relations court") erred to the prejudice of Petitioner/Appellant when it wrongly claimed the power anew to order Petitioner/Appellant to pay child support for his adult-aged child who is disabled, after any jurisdiction of the domestic relations court to order Petitioner/Appellant to pay child support terminated pursuant to R.C. 3119.86(B) and (C), and no such jurisdiction exists pursuant to R.C. 3119.86(A), which by its terms is limited to the [continuation] of jurisdiction that is in existence; not terminated."

{¶9} "[2.] The Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas Division of Domestic Relations ("domestic relations court") erred to the prejudice of Petitioner/Appellant when it made a child support order and other orders when it was without jurisdiction [to] do so. All acts of the domestic relations court made when it was without jurisdiction are utterly void."

{¶10} The issues of a court's subject-matter jurisdiction in a particular case is a question of law, which is reviewed under a de novo standard. Burns v. Daily, 114 Ohio App.3d 693, 701, 683 N.E.2d 1164 (11th Dist.1996).

{ΒΆ11} A domestic relations court's continuing jurisdiction to order child support beyond a child's eighteenth ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.