[Cite as Gerdes v. Gerdes, 2020-Ohio-3405.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

MARTIN GERDES, 

 Appellant, 

 - vs - 

ANNE GERDES, 

 Appellee. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-07-106 

O P I N I O N 

6/22/2020 

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION 

Case No. DR2017-10-0903 

Cook Howard Law, Ltd., Melynda Cook Howard, 1501 First Avenue, Middletown, Ohio 

45044, for appellant 

Anne Gerdes, 4366 Cherry Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, pro se 

 S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Martin Gerdes ("Husband"), appeals a decision issued by the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying several 

motions Husband filed following his divorce from appellee, Anne Gerdes ("Wife"), wherein 
Butler CA2019-07-106 

 - 2 - 

Husband requested certain modifications be made to the parties' final divorce decree.1 For 

the reasons outlined below, we reverse the domestic relations court's decision and remand 

for further proceedings. 

{¶ 2} Husband and Wife were married on October 16, 1999. There were three 

children born issue of the marriage: D.G., born on July 17, 2000; J.G., born on May 1, 2003; 

and C.G., born on July 14, 2004. Husband and Wife were separated following a domestic 

violence incident that occurred on October 2, 2017. This incident resulted in criminal 

charges being brought against Mother and the issuance of a domestic violence civil 

protection order.2 

{¶ 3} On October 13, 2017, Husband filed a complaint for divorce alleging the 

parties were incompatible. Husband also alleged that Wife was guilty of gross neglect of 

duty. Upon receiving Husband's complaint, the domestic relations court designated 

Husband as the children's temporary residential parent and ordered Wife to pay monthly 

child support to Husband. 

{¶ 4} On December 7, 2018, the domestic relations court issued a decision on 

Husband's complaint for divorce finding the parties were entitled to a divorce on the grounds 

of incompatibility and named Husband as the residential parent and legal custodian of the 

children. The domestic relations court also ordered Husband to pay Wife a lump sum 

property settlement in the amount of $9,734.77. 

{¶ 5} On December 19, 2018, the domestic relations court issued a supplemental 

decision. As part of this decision, the domestic relations court ordered Wife to pay $825.03 

 

1. Wife did not file an appellee's brief. Pursuant to App.R. 18(C), when an appellee fails to file a brief, "in 

determining the appeal, the court may accept the appellant's statement of the facts and issues as correct and 

reverse the judgment if appellant's brief reasonably appears to sustain such action." 

2. Wife was later convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. 

This court affirmed Wife's conviction in State v. Gerdes, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-03-056, 2019-Ohio913. 
Butler CA2019-07-106 

 - 3 - 

per month in child support to Husband, whereas Husband was ordered to pay $1,175 per 

month in spousal support to Wife. 

{¶ 6} On January 18, 2019, the domestic relations court issued a judgment entry 

and decree of divorce setting forth its earlier orders requiring: (1) Husband to pay Wife a 

lump sum property settlement in the amount of $9,734.77; (2) Wife to pay Husband $825.03 

per month in child support; and (3) Husband to pay Wife $1,175 per month in spousal 

support. 

{¶ 7} Over the next several months, Husband filed several motions with the 

domestic relations court. These motions included a motion to modify spousal support, a 

motion to modify child support, and a motion to "review property judgment" that requested 

the domestic relations court: (1) "offset" the $9,734.77 lump sum property settlement he 

owed to Wife against the child support arrears Wife owed to him; (2) "offset" his monthly 

spousal support payment against Wife's monthly child support obligations since Wife was 

"not paying child support timely;" and (3) modify the amount of spousal support he owed to 

Wife due to the changing "tax implications" that totaled "approximately $2,500.00 annually." 

{¶ 8} On May 20, 2019, the domestic relations court held a hearing on Husband's 

various motions. During this hearing, the domestic relations court heard testimony from 

both Husband and Wife. This included testimony from Husband claiming he was unable to 

afford his monthly spousal support obligation to Wife without Wife first paying her monthly 

child support obligation owed to him. Following this hearing, on June 3, 2019, both parties 

filed written closing arguments with the domestic relations court. As part of his closing 

arguments, Husband claimed that "[a]n offset from spousal support and child support is in 

the best interest of the minor children as well as equitable to both parties." 

{¶ 9} On June 17, 2019, the domestic relations court issued a decision summarily 

denying each of Husband's motions. Approximately three weeks later, on July 12, 2019, 
Butler CA2019-07-106 

 - 4 - 

Husband moved the domestic relations court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

However, by the time Husband had filed this motion, Husband had already filed a notice of 

appeal with this court on July 8, 2019. Likely due to the fact Husband had already filed a 

notice of appeal, on July 17, 2019, the domestic relations court denied Husband's motion 

for findings of fact and conclusions by noting it had "considered all evidence and entered 

its decision(s)." 

{¶ 10} Husband now appeals the domestic relations court's decision summarily 

denying his various motions, raising three assignments of error for review. Husband's three 

assignments of error are as follows: 

{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 12} REFUSAL TO GRANT AN OFFSET OF THE APPELLANT'S OBLIGATION 

OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT WITH THE APPELLEE'S OBLIGATION OF CHILD SUPPORT 

WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 14} REFUSAL TO OFFSET THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT LUMP SUM 

JUDGEMENT APPELLEE WAS TO RECEIVE FROM APPELLANT AGAINST THE CHILD 

SUPPORT ARREARAGES OWED BY APPELLEE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGOR WAS AN 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 3: 

{¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING TO REDUCE 

SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD AS A RESULT OF THE TAX IMPLICATIONS RESULTING 

FROM A DECREE FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2019. 

{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations court 

abused its discretion by denying his motion to "offset" his monthly spousal support 

obligation that he owed to Wife with the monthly child support obligation that Wife owed to 
Butler CA2019-07-106 

 - 5 - 

him. Similarly, in his second assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations 

court abused its discretion by denying his motion to "offset" the lump sum property 

settlement he owed to Wife with the child support arrearages Wife owed to him. Finally, in 

his third assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations court abused its 

discretion by denying his motion to modify his monthly spousal support obligation he owed 

to Wife when considering the tax implications changed after the domestic relations court 

issued its decision but before the final divorce decree was filed. 

{¶ 18} Since Husband had already filed his notice of appeal by the time he moved 

the domestic relations court for findings of fact and conclusions of law, it was proper for the 

domestic relations court to summarily deny Husband's motion for findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. See H.C. v. R.K., 9th Dist. Medina No. 14CA0103-M, 2016-Ohio-1572, 

¶ 24 (appellant's "notice of appeal deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act on her request 

for findings of fact and conclusions of law that she filed after the notice of appeal"). "Absent 

findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must presume regularity of the proceedings and 

proper application of the law by the trial court." Mandzak v. Graves, 12th Dist. No. Butler 

No. CA2009-06-173, 2010-Ohio-595, ¶ 10. That is to say, in the absence of findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, "we generally must presume that the trial court applied the law 

correctly and must affirm if some evidence in the record supports its judgment." McCarty 

v. Hayner, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 08CA8, 2009-Ohio-4540, ¶ 21, fn. 1. 

{¶ 19} However, even when presuming the regularity of the proceedings, "'for this 

court to be able to conduct any meaningful review of the trial court's exercise of its 

discretion, we must be able to discern some basis for its decision.'" In re Q.R., 12th Dist. 

Clinton No. CA2017-11-020, 2018-Ohio-4785, ¶ 14, quoting In re Estate of Murray, 11th 

Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0030, 2005-Ohio-1892, ¶ 26. But, in this case, the domestic 

relations court did not provide any reasoning or analysis as to why it had decided to deny 
Butler CA2019-07-106 

 - 6 - 

Husband's various post-decree motions. In other words, the record provides no indication 

of the domestic relations court's basis for denying Husband's requests for the domestic 

relations court to: (1) "offset" the $9,734.77 lump sum property settlement he owed to Wife 

against the child support arrears Wife owed to him; (2) "offset" his monthly spousal support 

payment against Wife's monthly child support obligations since Wife was "not paying child 

support timely;" and (3) modify the amount of spousal support he owed to Wife due to the 

changing "tax implications" that totaled "approximately $2,500.00 annually." 

{¶ 20} This court cannot perform a meaningful appellate review of the domestic 

relations court's decision absent a clear indication of the domestic relations court's 

underlying reasoning and analysis. See Preece v. Stern, 12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2008-

09-024 and 2008-09-029, 2009-Ohio-2519, ¶ 14. "[W]hen that analysis and clear reasoning 

is absent from the trial court's written opinion, it is impossible to review the decision without 

supplanting the trial court's judgment with our own." Id.; Barrow v. New Miami, 12th Dist. 

Butler No. CA2014-04-092, 2014-Ohio-5743, ¶ 27 (meaningful appellate review cannot be 

had where this court "would be forced to supplement our judgment for that of the trial court, 

something the law does not permit"). This holds true even though Wife did not file an 

appellee's brief. "[M]eaningful appellate review does not permit simply accepting one 

party's unsupported interpretation of the testimony and evidence as the only valid 

interpretation." Dasilva v. Dasilva, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-08-172, 2019-Ohio-2787, 

¶ 5. 

{¶ 21} What prompted the domestic relations court to deny each of Father's various 

motions is unknown and requires this court to speculate as to the domestic relations court's 

reasoning. We decline to engage in such speculation. See Wilhoite v. Kast, 12th Dist. 

Warren No. CA2001-01-001, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5996, *23 (Dec. 31, 2001) ("[a] 

meaningful review of a trial court's decision must be based on the record before us, not 
Butler CA2019-07-106 

 - 7 - 

mere conclusory assertions in an appellate brief"). Therefore, under these limited 

circumstances, this case must be reversed and remanded to the domestic relations court 

for further proceedings. 

{¶ 22} Upon remand, the domestic relations court shall issue a decision that provides 

a clear indication of its reasoning behind its decision to deny Husband's various motions so 

that this court can, if necessary, perform a meaningful appellate review should the need 

arise. This decision shall include an explanation as to how it is in the children's best interest 

for Husband to pay Wife a lump sum property settlement in the amount of $9,734.77 when 

the record indicates Wife has paid little, if any, child support to Husband as the children's 

residential parent and legal custodian. Accordingly, without providing any opinion as to the 

merit of Husband's claims raised herein, Husband's three assignments of error are 

sustained to the extent outlined above. 

Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.