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.

Truckey v. Truckey

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula

August 12, 2019

JAMES A. TRUCKEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEPHANIE J. TRUCKEY, n.k.a. BOCZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2012 DR 0297.

         Judgment: Reversed and remanded.

          Malcom Stewart Douglas, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

          Gary S. Okin, Dworken & Bernstein Co., LPA, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).

          OPINION

          MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

         {¶1} Appellant, Stephanie J. Truckey, n.k.a. Boczar ("Ms. Boczar"), appeals from the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas overruling her objections to a magistrate's decision and denying her motion to modify child support. After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand.

         Substantive History and Procedural Background

         {¶2} Ms. Boczar and appellee, James A. Truckey ("Mr. Truckey"), were divorced on April 2, 2013. A child support guideline worksheet attached to their divorce decree set Mr. Truckey's child support obligation at $717.72 per month, or $358.86 per month per child. Pursuant to the terms of the shared parenting plan adopted by the divorce decree, the parties deviated the child support obligation to zero.

         {¶3} On June 4, 2013, Ms. Boczar filed a motion to terminate and/or modify the shared parenting plan. The parties resolved this motion pursuant to an agreed judgment entry dated May 28, 2014. The agreed judgment entry continued the prior support order deviating Mr. Truckey's support obligation to zero.

         {¶4} On November 6, 2015, Ms. Boczar filed a motion to modify child support with an affidavit asserting that "a newly calculated child support amount will be more than Ten Percent (10%) greater than the existing order."

         {¶5} A magistrate heard the motion to modify on December 6, 2017, along with two other pending motions. On February 12, 2018, the magistrate issued a decision recommending that the trial court deny Ms. Boczar's motion to modify. The magistrate found that the child support worksheet "does show that based on the income of the parties, calculated support is a 10% change from $0." The magistrate concluded, however, "there has not been a substantial change of circumstances pursuant to R.C. §3119.79(C) to warrant a modification of the child support order."

         {¶6} Ms. Boczar filed objections to the magistrate's decision, and for purposes of the objections, Ms. Boczar accepted the magistrate's findings of facts and challenged the decision solely on the magistrate's application of the law.

         {¶7} The trial court overruled Ms. Boczar's objections and denied her motion to modify.

         {¶8} Ms. Boczar now appeals, bringing the following assignment ...


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.