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.

Vanest v. Vanest

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

December 29, 2017

ANGELA VANEST Appellant
v.
DOMINIQUE VANEST Appellee

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2011-01-0193

          RONALD T. GATTS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          LESLIE GRASKI, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          THOMAS A. TEODOSIO, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Angela Vanest appeals from the December 15, 2016, judgment entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, overruling her objections to the magistrate's decision. We reverse and remand.

         I.

         {¶2} In January 2011, Ms. Vanest filed a complaint for legal separation and allocation of parental rights against Dominique Vanest, and in July 2011, the trial court entered a decree of divorce and approved a shared parenting plan for the couple's three children. In July 2016, the trial court entered an agreed judgment entry maintaining the shared parenting plan, naming Ms. Vanest the residential parent for school purposes of two of the children, and naming Mr. Vanest the residential parent for school purposes of one of the children. Also in July 2016, a magistrate's decision set child support to be paid by Mr. Vanest in the amount of $43.67 per month, with the decision being adopted by the trial court. Ms. Vanest filed objections to the magistrates' decision, and on December 15, 2016, the trial court entered judgment overruling her objections. Ms. Vanest now appeals, raising two assignments of error.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE

         THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN USING A SPLIT CUSTODY WORKSHEET PURSUANT TO R.C. 3119.023 SINCE THE VANESTS' CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF SPLIT CUSTODY PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND IN FAILING TO PROPERLY USE THE SHARED CUSTODY WORKSHEET PURSUANT TO R.C. 3119.022 AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE AND OHIO CASE LAW.

         {¶3} In her first assignment of error, Ms. Vanest argues the trial court abused its discretion when it utilized a split custody worksheet to calculate child support despite the fact that the parties had shared parenting of their children. We agree.

         {¶4} On the appeal from an order for child support, a reviewing court reviews the order of the trial court for an abuse of discretion. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 (1989). An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying this standard, a reviewing court is precluded from simply substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993).

         {¶5} "When it first awards child support, the court must calculate the amount in accordance with the statutory schedule and the applicable worksheet * * *." Irish v. Irish, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA009810, 2011-Ohio-3111, ¶ 14. "Regardless of whether the trial court determines that a shared parenting plan or a split parental rights arrangement is adopted, it must use the worksheet which corresponds with the parenting plan that it orders, i.e. a shared parenting plan order requires use of the shared parenting worksheet, a split parenting plan requires use of the split parenting worksheet." Ullom v. Ullom, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 01 CO 33, 2002-Ohio-3005, ¶ 15. "When a court or child support enforcement agency calculates the amount of child support to be paid pursuant to a child support order in a proceeding in which * * * the court issues a shared parenting order, the court or agency shall use a worksheet identical in content and form to the [shared parenting order worksheet]." R.C. 3119.022. The worksheet identified in Section 3119.022 is the "shared parenting" worksheet. Sandorf v. Sandorf, 190 Ohio App.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-5326, ¶ 6.

         {¶6} "R.C. 3119.022 governs the procedures for awarding and calculating child support. Its provisions are mandatory in nature and must be followed literally and technically in all material aspects * * *." Irish at ¶ 14. See also Albright v. Albright, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 06CA35, 2007-Ohio-3709, ¶ 7; Coward v. Coward, 5th Dist. Licking No. 15-CA-46, 2016-Ohio-670, ΒΆ 17. "R.C. 3119.022 provides the worksheet to be completed by a trial court in calculating child support under a shared parenting order. Completion of a worksheet, identical in ...


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.