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.

Brancatto v. Boersma

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District

July 10, 2013

Loraine Brancatto Appellee
v.
Jeffrey W. Boersma Appellant

Trial Court No. DR2007-0658

Richard H. Carr, for appellant.

Jay E. Feldstein and Edward J. Stechschulte, for appellee.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

SINGER, P.J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from an order of the Lucas County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, denying a motion to modify child support. Because we conclude that the trial court properly overruled appellant's objections to a magistrate's decision, we affirm.

{¶ 2} Appellant, Jeffrey William Boersma, and appellee, Loraine Brancatto, were divorced in 2009 after a 12-year marriage. Appellee was named residential parent and legal custodian of the parties' two children. Appellant was ordered to pay $2, 500 per month spousal support for four years and $2, 550 per month in child support.

{¶ 3} On April 28, 2011, appellant moved to reduce his child support obligation, arguing that appellee, unemployed at the time of the divorce decree, was now employed and earned approximately $19, 000 in 2010. Moreover, appellant noted, he was making substantially less than the $180, 000 annual income imputed to him when the child support obligation was computed. This, appellant suggested, constituted a change of circumstances sufficient to allow a modification of the support order.

{¶ 4} A hearing on the motion was held before a magistrate. Following the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision in which she concluded appellant's present salary was of no significance because appellant had initially been found to be "voluntarily unemployed." The $180, 000 income imputed to him was based on his prior earning history. The magistrate found no significance in the fact that the company from which appellant was voluntarily unemployed was no longer in business. Indeed, the magistrate noted, the lower salary appellant now claims is the amount he elects to pay himself from a company he is now buying.

{¶ 5} With respect to appellee's current income, the magistrate concluded that appellee's "future employment was contemplated at the time of the parties' divorce therefore it is not a change of circumstance sufficient to modify [appellant's] child support obligation." The magistrate found appellant's motion not well-taken.

{¶ 6} Appellant objected to the magistrate's decision. In August 22 and August 29, 2012 entries, the court overruled appellant's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. Appellant now brings this appeal.

{¶ 7} Appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error:

I. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it adopted the magistrate's decision dismissing appellant's motion to modify child support holding the appellee's future employment (subsequent to the judgment entry of divorce) was contemplated at the time of the parties [sic] divorce therefore it is not a change of circumstances sufficient to modify appellant's child support obligation.
II. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it adopted the magistrate's decision that appellant was voluntarily underemployed as a result of voluntarily resigning from employment with a company that subsequent to the judgment entry of divorce went completely out of business.

{¶ 8} When a trial court reviews objections to a magistrate's decision, review is de novo. Not only is the court not bound by the magistrate's decision, the court has an obligation to conduct an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain whether the magistrate has properly determined the facts and appropriately applied the law. Civ.R. ...


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.