Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland
from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, Case No. 2005 DIV 0950.
Plaintiff-Appellant: BYRON CORLEY
Defendant-Appellee: ANDREW J. MEDWID
JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
Plaintiff-Appellant James Hooper appeals the July 1, 2016
judgment entry of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff-Appellant James Hooper ("Father") and
Defendant-Appellee Wynea Hooper nka Sunnee Edwards
("Mother") were married and had two children as
issue of the marriage. The parties divorced. At the time of
the issues raised in this matter, one child was under the age
of 18. Mother was the residential parent of the child and
Father was obligated to pay child support.
Mother and Father came before the magistrate of the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division
because Mother objected to an administrative child support
modification recommendation by the Richland County Child
Support Enforcement Agency. The magistrate held a hearing on
December 15, 2015. Mother was not represented by counsel at
the hearing. On December 15, 2015 and as journalized in the
magistrate's January 7, 2016 decision, Mother and Father
agreed to a monthly child support obligation by Father in the
amount of $517.65 per month.
The parties, however, could not agree as to the allocation of
the tax dependency exemption and credit for the child. The
magistrate's decision noted Mother testified she had
earned income from her employment in 2015 before she lost her
job. According to the magistrate's decision, Mother was
unwilling or unable to state the amount of income she earned
in 2015. The magistrate found Mother's answers to be
vague and evasive. In the decision, the magistrate considered
Father's annualized income of $40, 183.75 and
Mother's annualized income from unemployment compensation
in the amount of $5, 798.00. The magistrate determined that
because Mother's taxable income was so low, an award of
the tax exemption to Mother would be wasted. The magistrate
awarded the tax exemption to Father.
Mother filed an objection to the magistrate's decision on
January 21, 2016. She argued she should have received the
income tax exemption for the child. Mother contended she had
taxable income for 2015, but was currently unemployed. In
support of her objection, Mother attached a paystub showing
her year to date salary as of July 31, 2015 was $14, 724.00.
Father did not respond to Mother's objection to the
On March 2, 2016, the trial court journalized the
parties' agreement to modify the child support. Attached
to the entry was the child support computation worksheet.
Father filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
Civ.R. 60(B)(5) on March 7, 2016. In the motion, Father
argued Mother committed a fraud on the court by her failure
to disclose her correct gross income for child support
computation purposes. Father used Mother's July 31, 2015