from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Division of
Domestic Relations (C.P.C. No. 13DR-1497)
R. Butler; McKinlay Law Offices, LLC, and Amy M. McKinlay,
Tyack Law Firm Co. LPA, and Thomas M. Tyack, for appellant.
1} The parties in this case divorced almost five
years ago. They still seem unable to resolve even relatively
minor differences, a circumstance that can be especially sad
in the parental context. This appeal involves the
timing of a credit that ex-husband William Roush has
been accorded for a child support overpayment amounting to
something on the order of $2, 000 (although the parties
don't quite agree as to the precise sum involved).
2} The domestic relations judge who has been
assisting the parties in the litigious unwinding of their
marriage denied, as not in the best interest of the
parties' unemancipated son, William Roush's motion to
"impound" child support funds now, on the view that
"William will be refunded his nominal overpayment of
child support * * * at the time the parties' second child
emancipates and William's child support obligation is
terminated earlier to account for said overpayment."
March 27, 2019 Decision and Entry at 3. Noting that
"William owes $300, 000 - $400, 000 to Allison [Clark,
formerly known as Roush] in a retirement division that is
still pending," and that Mr. Roush's motion,
"though permissible, could have been avoided and
attorney fees reduced or minimized," the trial court
awarded Ms. Clark $1, 000 in attorney fees incurred for
defending against the failed motion temporarily to cease
support. Id. at 4-5.
3} The trial court's decision provides the
necessary background. "After protracted and contentious
litigation largely attributable to William's actions, the
parties' marriage was terminated" by decree in 2015.
Id. at 1. Under that decree, Mr. Roush was to pay
Ms. Clark $300 per month in spousal support and $1, 305 in
child support for the benefit of their two minor children,
transfer to Ms. Clark 50 percent of the value of a specified
IRA and (through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order) $374,
404 from his retirement fund, and make certain other
payments. Id. at 1-2. After the trial court found
Mr. Roush in contempt for having failed to make certain
payments and the retirement fund transfer, it awarded further
attorney fees to Ms. Clark. Id. at 2; see also
Roush v. Roush, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-1071, 16AP-264, and
16AP-388, 2017-Ohio-840) (affirming decree and contempt
finding with related fee award). "William's
propensity for litigation and failure to abide by court
orders precipitated the Court to appoint a Receiver * *
*." March 27, 2019 Decision and Entry at 2.
4} As that decision further recites, the Roush's
older son turned 18 and was emancipated in July 2018.
Id. That event had the effect of reducing Mr.
Roush's child support obligations, but his employer
"did not immediately implement the new withholding order
and Allison received an overpayment of child support"
amounting, as the trial court read the parties' various
submissions, to something just over $1, 700 as of February or
March 2019. Id. at 2-3 (relating to the months of
October - December 2018).
5} Mr. Roush's February 5, 2019 Motion to
Impound Funds requested the impoundment of $2, 299.26 claimed
to have been overpaid as of that date. His motion attached a
chain of purported e-mail correspondence between Mr. Roush
and someone he characterized as a "representative of the
Child Support Enforcement Agency," who told him (in the
second to last message appended, dated January 31, 2019 at
12:21:49 p.m., with emphasis added by us) that:
The typical thing to do in these situations is terminate
the order a little early but I know you were against
doing that when we met last so filing with the court is ...