Court Opinion

ID: 9393789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 14:06:14.21273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:54.880346
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re B.M., 2023-Ohio-1567.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE B.M.                                    :
                                                       No. 111905
Minor Children                                :

[Appeal by Bl. M., Father]                    :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 11, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                   Juvenile Division
                                 Case No. FA21202720

                                        Appearances:

                The Law Office of Brent A. Cicero, LLC, and Brent A.
                Cicero, for appellant Father.

                A.H., pro se.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

                Defendant-appellant father appeals from the trial court’s decision

modifying father’s child support obligation with respect to the court’s designation of

plaintiff-appellee mother as the parent entitled to claim both of their children as a

dependent for purposes of federal income tax deductions. Mother was designated
by the court to claim both children despite the parties’ stipulation that would allow

each parent to claim a child as a dependent. Our review of the pertinent statute and

applicable case law authority indicates that the trial court was without discretion to

disregard the parties’ agreement in this matter. Consequently, we reverse the trial

court’s decision in part and remand the matter for further proceeding consistent

with this opinion and the law.

Background

               Mother and father have two children, B.M., born in 2018, and T.M.,

born in 2019. On March 22, 2021, an administrative order for child support was

issued. Father was found to have income of $41,288 and mother, $29,458. The

child support order required father to pay $343.85 per month per child (plus

medical support of $18.90 per child) to mother, the custodian parent.

               Within ten days of the administrative order, on April 2, 2021, mother

filed both a complaint to adopt the administrative child support order and a motion

to modify the child support order. Mother alleged father’s income was higher.

               On May 9, 2022, a magistrate heard the matter. At the beginning of the

hearing, mother’s counsel reported that the parties had a stipulation regarding the

parents’ entitlement to claim the children as dependents for federal tax purposes:

mother would claim both children for 2021 and, starting in 2022, father would claim

B.M. and mother would claim T.M. as a dependent.1

      1   The transcript of the hearing reflects the following exchanges:

      [Mother’s Counsel]: We have a stipulation that you might want to hear. * * *
            At the hearing, father argued there were no significant changes in

circumstances during the period between the support order and mother’s motion to

modify. Mother acknowledged there were no changes in circumstances but alleged

father’s income was more than what was determined in the administrative support

order. The magistrate chastised father for not submitting any financial documents

to prove his income for 2021. In the subsequent decision issued on May 20, 2022,

the magistrate found father should be imputed to have income of $52,800 for his

self-employment as a landscaper cutting lawns and plowing snow. Father’s monthly

child support was modified from $343.85 to $438.94 per child.

             Pertinent to this appeal, the magistrate ordered that, pursuant to

R.C. 3119.82, mother is entitled to claim both children as dependents, in the absence

of “any evidence at [the] hearing submitted to rebut the presumption that the

custodial parent is entitled to claim the child as a dependent.”

            Father filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision, asserting

that the parties stipulated on the record that father would claim B.M. as a dependent

      [Magistrate]: Okay. So, * * * go ahead and put on the record whatever the
      stipulation is and I’ll make a note of it.
      [Mother’s Counsel]: Thank you Magistrate. The stipulation is for the tax
      year ending December 31, 2021, [mother] claims both children for tax
      deductions. And starting in the tax year ending 12/31/22, mother and father
      each split. Father gets [T.M.] as his tax deduction and mother gets [B.M.] as
      her tax deduction. I would just ask [father’s counsel] if that’s accurate.
      [Magistrate]: Okay.
      [Father’s Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor, that is accurate.
      [Magistrate]: Okay. All right. * * *
      [Mother’s Counsel]: I’ve been corrected. [Father] gets [B.M.] I’m sorry.
      And [mother] gets [T.M.] Is that right?
      [Father’s counsel]: That is correct.
for federal income tax purposes and mother would claim T.M. The trial court

overruled the objection and adopted the magistrate’s decision. This appeal follows.

Analysis

            On appeal, father raises the following assignment of error for our

review:

      The trial court erred by not including a stipulation established at trial
      regarding which parent will claim which child as a dependent for
      federal income tax purposes.

            We review the instant appeal with the recognition that “[m]atters

involving child support are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”

Morrow v. Becker, 138 Ohio St.3d 11, 2013-Ohio-4542, 3 N.E.3d 144, ¶ 9, citing

Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (1997).

              R.C. 3119.82, which governs the designation of the parent entitled to

claim federal income tax deduction, states, in pertinent part:

      [“W]henever a court issues, or whenever a court modifies, reviews, or
      otherwise reconsiders a court child support order, or upon the request
      of any party, the court shall designate which parent may claim the
      children who are the subject of the court child support order as
      dependents for federal income tax purposes * * *. If the parties agree
      on which parent should claim the children as dependents, the court
      shall designate that parent as the parent who may claim the children.
      If the parties do not agree, the court, in its order, may permit the parent
      who is not the residential parent and legal custodian to claim the
      children as dependents for federal income tax purposes only if the court
      determines that this furthers the best interest of the children and, with
      respect to orders the court modifies, reviews, or reconsiders, the
      payments for child support are substantially current as ordered by the
      court for the year in which the children will be claimed as dependents.
      In cases in which the parties do not agree which parent may claim the
      children as dependents, the court shall consider, in making its
      determination, any net tax savings, the relative financial circumstances
      and needs of the parents and children, the amount of time the children
      spend with each parent, the eligibility of either or both parents for the
      federal earned income tax credit or other state or federal tax credit, and
      any other relevant factor concerning the best interest of the children.

(Emphasis added.) The statute provides that, regardless of which parent is the

residential parent, when the parties agree on which parent should claim the

children as dependents, the court shall designate that parent as the parent who may

claim the children. When the parties do not agree, the court may permit the non-

residential parent to claim the children only if the court determines that it furthers

the best interest of the children, and, in making the determination, the court shall

consider the financial circumstances of the parents and several other enumerated

factors. These procedures apply whenever a court “issues, or whenever a court

modifies, reviews, or otherwise reconsiders a court child support order, or upon the

request of any party.” Id.

             In this case, the parties stipulated in open court on May 9, 2022, that,

beginning in 2022, father would claim B.M. as a dependent for federal tax deduction

purposes and mother would claim T.M. While the trial court cited R.C. 3119.82 in

its decision, it disregarded the statutory provision that mandates the court to make

the designation in accordance with the parties’ agreement if, as in the instant case,

such an agreement is reached. Instead, the trial court noted that father submitted

no evidence at the hearing to rebut the presumption that mother, as the custodial

parent, was entitled to claim the child as a dependent. However, R.C. 3119.82 does

not provide for the trial court’s consideration of the enumerated factors when the
parties have agreed on the issue. While the trial court’s decision in child support

matters falls within its discretion, “a trial court’s discretion is not unfettered and the

mandatory statutory child-support requirements must be followed in all material

respects.” In re S.S.L.S., 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 12 CO 8, 2013-Ohio-3026, ¶ 22,

citing Sapinsley v. Sapinsley, 171 Ohio App.3d 74, 2007-Ohio-1320, 869 N.E.2d

702, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), and Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139, 601 N.E.2d 496

(1992), paragraph two of the syllabus. See also           Lenoir v. Paschal, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 23732, 2010-Ohio-2922, ¶ 8 (finding the trial court abused its

discretion in not following the statutorily mandated procedure in calculating child

support).   The trial court’s decision here conflicts with the clear mandate of

R.C. 3119.82. Under the governing statute, the court was without discretion to

designate mother as the parent entitled to claim B.M. as a dependent when the

parties have reached an agreement to the contrary. The trial court’s discretion must

yield to the statutory provision.

              Furthermore, we note that “a stipulation is a voluntary agreement

entered into between opposing parties concerning the disposition of some relevant

point in order to avoid the necessity for proof on an issue” Wilson v. Harvey, 164

Ohio App.3d 278, 2005-Ohio-5722, 842 N.E.2d 83, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). “A stipulation

may also be defined as a voluntary agreement, admission, or concession made by

the parties or their attorneys concerning disposition of some relevant point to

eliminate the need for proof or to narrow the range of issues to be litigated.” Id. See

also Bodrock v. Bodrock, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104177, 2016-Ohio-5852, ¶ 19;
McLeod v. McLeod, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2012-A-0030, 2013-Ohio-4546, ¶ 32

(“stipulations remove an issue from the litigation”).

              Here, pursuant to R.C. 3119.82, the parties’ agreement regarding the

parent entitled to claim the federal tax deduction removed the issue from the trial

court’s consideration. The trial court’s order that mother is entitled to claim B.M.

as a defendant did not comply with the statute and therefore constituted an abuse

of discretion.2

               For the foregoing reasons, we sustain father’s assignment of error.

The portion of the trial court’s decision permitting mother to claim B.M. as a

dependent for tax deduction purposes is reversed and the matter is remanded for

the trial court to enter an order in accordance with the parties’ stipulation permitting

father to claim B.M. as a dependent beginning with tax year 2022.

              Judgment reversed in part, and case remanded.

       It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed.

       The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.

2 Mother claims on appeal that the trial court entitled mother to claim B.M. as a
dependent because father failed to present financial documents to prove his income. Our
review of the record does not indicate the trial court made the designation based on
father’s failure to present the necessary evidence to prove his income. In any event, as we
have explained, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court could not consider
the factors enumerated in R.C. 3119.82.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

___________________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR