[Cite as Degrell v. Degrell , 2020-Ohio-4760.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

KELENE M. DEGRELL JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Crai g R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2020CA00006 ROBERT A. DEGRELL Defendant-Appellant O P I N IO N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2019CU00003

JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 30, 2020

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellan t

DOUGLAS C. BOND ROBERT A. DEGRELL

– Pro Se Bond Law, Ltd. 429 Parkview Street, N.E., #3 600 Court y ard Centre Massillon, Ohio 44646 116 Cleveland Avenue, N.W. Canton, Ohio 44702Stark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert A. Degrell (“Father”) appeals the De cember 10, 2019 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, which overruled his objections to the magistrate’s Oc tober 18, 2019 decision, and approved and adopted said decision as order of the court. Plaintiff-appellee is Kelene M. Degrell (“Mother”).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS {¶2} The parties’ marriage was terminated by dissolution on December 16, 2014, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Th e judgment incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement (“the Agreement”), which Moth er and Father executed on August 25, 2014. The Agreement provided Mother would have s ole custody of the parties’ two minor children with Father having parenting time, and Father would pay child support in the amount of $1,254.00/month, effective September 1 , 2014, as well as $1,875.00/month to offset Mother’s childcare expenses, includin g tuition. Mother’s childcare expenses at the time totaled $2,500.00/month. {¶3} Pursuant to the language of the Agreement, the parties individu ally acknowledged they had been informed of their rights concerning child support, entered into the Agreement without coercion or duress, and recognized t he Agreement was in the

best interests of the children. {¶4} Father was a licensed attorney in the state of California at th e time the parties entered into the Agreement. An incident occurred betwe en Mother and Father, which resulted in criminal charges being filed against Father. In March, 2017, Father was convicted and sentenced to jail. Father lost his employment an d his license to practiceStark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 3

law as a result. Also, as a result of the incident, Mother mov ed with the children to Canton, Ohio, in May/June, 2017. {¶5} On February 14, 2018, Father requested modification of his chi ld support obligation from the Los Angeles County Department of Child Supp ort Services (“LACDCSS”). LACDCSS found it did not have jurisdiction to mod ify the order. On February 13, 2019, Father filed a Request for Order in the Supe rior Court of California, seeking modification of his child support obligation. The Calif ornia Superior Court conducted a hearing on March 19, 2019. Via Order filed March 2 8, 2019, the California Superior Court denied Father’s request for modification of chil d support, finding Father failed to establish a sufficient change of circumstances to jus tify such modification. The Superior Court further found Ohio was the proper jurisdiction t o determine matters of child support and modification. Father did not appeal this decision. Father filed another motion in the California Superior Court, requesting the Agreement be s et aside. After conducting a hearing on June 10, 2019, the California Superior Court denie d Father’s request. Father also did not appeal this decision. {¶6} On February 20, 2019, Mother filed a Motion and Notice to Regis ter a Foreign Decree in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Domes tic Relations Division. Via Order and Notice pursuant to R.C. 3127.35 filed February 20, 2019, the trial court registered the Judgment Entry issued by the California Su perior Court on December 16, 2014, and as modified on July 17, 2018, in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas,

Domestic Relations Division. Father was served notice of the r egistration on February 22, 2019.Stark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 4

{¶7} On August 22, 2019, Father filed a motion for change of child s upport. Mother filed a Motion to Determine Arrears on August 29, 2019. After Father failed to appear at the scheduled mediation, the magistrate conducted a h earing on October 8, 2019. Mother presented arrearage information from the Los Angel es Child Support Services Department (“CSSD”) which showed Father had an arreara ge of $112,202.31, through August, 2019, as well as arrearage information from the Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”) which showed Father had an arrearage of $115,719.62, through October, 2019. Father argued he should no t have to reimburse Mother for childcare expenses because he believed Mother did no t incur any childcare expenses after she relocated to Ohio; therefore, those amounts should not have been included in the CSSD audit total. Father explained the parties agreed he would pay 75% of the actual childcare expenses Mother incurred, Mother failed to provide an accounting of her childcare expenditures as she was required to do, and Mo ther failed to notify Father and the court of any changes in the childcare amounts as she wa s required to do. Father did not present any evidence to establish these provisions were part of the Agreement. {¶8} Via Decision filed October 18, 2019, the magistrate found Fathe r’s child support arrearages to be $115,719.62, as of October 7, 2019. T he magistrate indicated it was “not inclined to go back in time and retroactively modif y the parties’ agreement regarding child care costs in order to reduce Father’s arrearag es, particularly in light of

the fact that Father could have motioned the California court w hen he lost his employment in order to seek a reduction rather than waiting years later.” Magistrate’s Decision at 3. The magistrate further found the parties agreed Father was to p ay $1,875/month without delineating a percentage to either party. The magistrate noted the Agreement did notStark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 5

require Mother to provide an accounting of her childcare expens es or report any changes in those amounts to Father or the court. The magistrate added Father entered into the Agreement voluntarily and without duress or coercion. {¶9} On October 18, 2019, Father filed a Motion to Set Aside the 10/ 10/19 Decision of the Magistrate, or in the alternative: Defendant’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision of 10/10/19. Via Judgment Entry filed De cember 10, 2019, the trial court overruled Father’s objections, and approved and adopted t he magistrate’s decision as order of the court. The trial court ordered the trial previ ously scheduled for December 11, 2019, would proceed on that date. The parties appeared bef ore the trial court on the scheduled trial date and advised the court they had reached an agreement as to all orders. In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the trial c ourt modified Father’s child support obligation to $480.50/month for both children, retroact ive to September 1, 2019. The trial court memorialized the parties’ agreement via Agreed Entry filed December 12,

2019. {¶10} Father filed a Notice of Appeal from the December 10, 2019 judg ment entry on January 8, 2020. A second Notice of Appeal was filed on Jan uary 31, 2020. This Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal as untimely filed based u pon the date of the second Notice of Appeal. Father filed a motion to reconsider, which this Court granted via Judgment Entry filed March 31, 2020. {¶11} On January 27, 2020, Father filed Defendant’s Appeal from the M agistrate’s Decision of 10/28/2019 and Denial of Objection by Judge Nist da ted 12/3/2019. After receiving leave from this Court, Mother filed her Brief on May 27, 2020. Mother also filed a motion to dismiss Father’s appeal. Mother argued the appeal should be dismissedStark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 6

because Father failed to comply with Local R. 5(A) as the recor d on appeal was incomplete and also failed to comply with App. R. 16 as his bri ef was noncompliant. On May 29, 2020, Father filed a request for leave to file an amend ed brief as well as a request for leave to file a transcript of the trial court’s December 3, 2019 hearing on his objections to the magistrate’s decision. Via Judgment Entry filed June 30, 2020, this Court denied Father’s request for leave to file the December 3, 2019 transcr ipt as Father made the request after the briefs had been filed. In a separate judgmen t entry also filed June 30, 2020, this Court denied Father’s request for leave to file an a mended brief.

ANALYSIS {¶12} In his Brief to this Court, Father failed to include “[a] state ment of the assignments of error presented for review, with reference to th e place in the record where each error is reflected” as required by App. R. 16(A)(3). Rathe r, in the Argument section of his Brief, Father set forth the following:

A. RETROACTIVE MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT AND CHILD

CARE

B. REIMBURSEMENT OF CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES NOT MADE

{¶13} We shall address Father’s assertions together. {¶14} The gravamen of Father’s arguments is the trial court abused it s discretion in failing to make the order modi fying child support retroactiv e to February 14, 2018, the date on which he requested modification from LACDCSS, or, at th e latest, February 13, 2019, the date on which he filed his request for modification i n the Superior Court ofStark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 7

California, and in ordering him to reimburse Mother for childca re expenditures she did not

make. {¶15} Before we address Father’s arguments, we must first examine the state of

the record before us. As noted in our Statement of the Case and Facts, on May 29, 2020, Father requested leave to file a transcript of the trial court’ s December 3, 2019 hearing on his objections to the magistrate’s decision. This Court deni ed the request via Judgment Entry filed June 30, 2020. Father, nonetheless, filed the tran script of the December 3, 2019 hearing without leave of court. We find the transcript is not properly before this Court and we will not consider the transcript as part of the re cord before us. {¶16} Father is appealing the trial court’s December 10, 2019 Judgmen t Entry, which denied his objections to the magistrate’s October 28, 201 9 decision, and approved and adopted said decision as order of the court. In its Decemb er 10, 2019 Judgment Entry, the trial court specifically stated it had “reviewed the decision of the magistrate, the transcript of the proceedings, all relevant documents, plus the statements presented at the objection hearing .” (Emphasis added.) In the absence of this transcript, we ar e unable to review any additional evidence the trial court consid ered in overruling Father’s objections to the magi strate’s decision. {¶17} When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of ass igned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume t he validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Lab. , 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). Because Father has failed to provide this Court wit h a transcript, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below and affirm. It is the duty of an appellantStark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 8

to ensure the record, or whatever portions thereof are necessar y for the determination of the appeal, are filed with the court in which he seeks review. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v.

Adams , 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 19, 520 N.E.2d 56 (1988). {¶18} Despite the lack of the transcript of the December 3, 2019 hear ing, we find, based upon the record properly before us, the trial court did n ot abuse its discretion in overruling Father’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. {¶19} Father asserts the exorbitant arrearage balance would not exis t but for the California Superior Court’s denial of his February 13, 2019 mot ion based upon its incorrect determination Ohio was the proper jurisdiction to add ress matters of child support and modification. Father submits, because the Californ ia Superior Court’s ruling was erroneous, the trial court should have made the modificatio n of his child support obligation retroactive to February 14, 2018, the date on which he requested modification from LACDCSS, or, at the latest, February 13, 2019, the date on which he filed his request for modification in the Superior Court of California. {¶20} The record reveals Father did not appeal the California Superio r Court’s decision. Father did not request a modification of his child s upport obligation from the trial court until August 22, 2019. After the trial court over ruled Father’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, the parties reached an agreement as to a ll orders, including an agreement to a modification of Father’s child support obligatio n to $480.50/month for both children, retroactive to September 1, 2019. {¶21} In Ohio, the general rule is “ ‘[a]bsent special circumstances, an order of a trial court modifying child support should be retroactive to th e date such modification was first requested; the effective date of modification must coinci de with some significantStark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 9

event in the litigation, and an arbitrary date may not be emplo yed.’ ” Mauerman v.

Mauerman , 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2002-T-0049, 2003-Ohio-3876, ¶18, quoting Sutherell v. Sutherell , 11th Dist. Lake No. 97-L-296, 1999 WL 417990, *4 (June 11, 1999). “The general rule is based on equitable principles i n recognition of ‘the substantial time it frequently takes to dispose of motions to m odify child support obligations’. ” Zamos v. Zamos , 11th Dist. Portage No. 2002-P-0085, 2004-Ohio-2310, ¶13, quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton , 107 Ohio App.3d 132, 139-140 (1995). {¶22} Because Father agreed the modification be retroactive to Septem ber 1, 2019, and because September 1, 2019, is sufficiently close in t ime to August 22, 2019, the date on which Father first filed his motion requesting modi fication of child support in Ohio, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in s electing that date. {¶23} Father also challenges the magistrate’s decision finding Mother was entitled to retroactive reimbursement in the form of arrearages of $1,87 5/month for childcare expenses. Father contends Mother neither incurred nor paid such amounts. Father adds, to continue to make him pay $1,875/month based upon the Agreeme nt executed in 2014, results in Mother being unjustly enriched. We disagree. {¶24} Father’s responsibility to reimburse Mother for childcare expen ses was a separate obligation under the parties’ original dissolution agr eement. Father must seek modification of that provision of the Agreement in the appropri ate forum.Stark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00006 10

{¶25} Based upon the foregoing, we overrule Father’s assignments of e rror. {¶26} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Baldwin, J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur