Court Opinion

ID: 9366374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 17:07:45.199037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.573044
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re J.M.P., 2023-Ohio-225.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE J.M.P.                                   :
                                               :              No. 111825
A Minor Child                                  :
                                               :
[Appeal by Father]                             :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 26, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                   Juvenile Division
                                Case No. FA-18-110370

                                         Appearances:

                 Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., and Kenneth J. Cahill,
                 for appellant.

                 The Law Office of Susan M. Stephanoff and Nicholas G.
                 Haddad, for appellee.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

                   This appeal arises from a dispute over the interpretation of a shared

parenting plan executed by defendant-appellant, M.J.P. (“Father”), and plaintiff-

appellee, S.M.N. (“Mother”) regarding the enrollment of their minor child, J.M.P.

(d.o.b. 07/14/2017), in prekindergarten. Father appeals the trial court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Mother, finding that Mother can enroll J.M.P. in pre-

kindergarten at St. Paschal Baylon School in Highland Heights, Ohio (“St. Paschal”).

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

              On October 18, 2021, Father and Mother entered into a shared

parenting plan to address, inter alia, “issues of the major decisions concerning

[J.M.P.’s] health, social situation, morals, welfare, education and economic

environment.” Under the parties’ shared parenting plan, Mother is the residential

parent for school purposes and Father agreed to pay one-half private school tuition

if Mother decides to enroll the child in St. Paschal Baylon. The juvenile court

adopted the shared parenting plan the following day.

              Eight months later, in June 2022, Father filed a motion for a

restraining order to prevent Mother from “unilaterally” removing J.M.P. from the

Pembroke School in Willoughby Hills, Ohio and enrolling him in prekindergarten at

St. Paschal starting in fall 2022. Mother filed a motion for summary judgment,

arguing that as “residential parent for school purposes,” “she is the parent vested

with the decision-making power on the issue of school enrollment,” and that

pursuant to the shared parenting plan, she has raised J.M.P. in the Catholic religion

and has decided to enroll him at St. Paschal, where J.M.P. regularly attends church

services. In support her of argument, Mother cited the first sentence of the shared

parenting plan’s “Private School Tuition” clause: “Father agrees to pay one-half

(1/2) of this expense if Mother decides to enroll the child in St. Paschal Baylon.”

Father opposed the motion, conceding that the shared parenting plan authorizes
Mother to enroll J.M.P. in kindergarten at St. Paschal when he reaches kindergarten

age in August 2023, but does not authorize Mother to make any changes to J.M.P.’s

preschool at Pembroke School without first consulting with Father.

              On July 21, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment entry stating that

the matter was before the court on Mother’s motion for summary judgment and that

      [t]he Terms of the Shared Parenting Plan specifically states [sic] “If
      Mother decides to enroll the child in St. Paschal Baylon Pre K-Grade 4,
      Father’s obligation shall not be more than $250.00 per month.”

      The Parties in their Shared Parenting Plan anticipated possible
      enrollment in St. Paschal Baylon Pre-K program, therefore, Defendant-
      Father’s Motion to Restrain same is denied.

(Judgment Entry, July 21, 2022.)

              It is from this judgment that Father now appeals, raising the following

single assignment of error for review:

      Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or committed plain
      error granting Appellee/Mother’s motion for summary judgment.

              Father argues that the trial court erred by granting Mother’s motion

for summary judgment and inserting new terms into the parties’ shared parenting

plan. Specifically, Father argues that the term “prekindergarten” is not expressly

provided by the relevant portions of the shared parenting plan, and the plan

nowhere contemplates that the parties agreed to enroll J.M.P. in prekindergarten at

St. Paschal. Mother argues that the shared parenting plan “vest[s her] with sole and

unbridled authority” to remove J.M.P. from Pembroke and enroll him in St. Paschal

because it provides that “Mother shall be the residential parent for school purposes.”
              There is some confusion in the parties’ briefs over the applicable

standard of review, attributable in part to the trial court’s judgment entry stating

that the matter was before the trial court on Mother’s motion for summary

judgment, which the trial court resolved by denying Father’s motion for a restraining

order based on its interpretation of the parties’ shared parenting plan. We interpret

the trial court’s judgment entry as granting summary judgment to Mother and

denying Father’s request for a restraining order based on its interpretation of the

parties’ shared parenting plan.

              Summary judgment is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of any

material fact remains; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one

conclusion, and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving

party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Grafton v. Ohio Edison

Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). When a matter presents no

issues of material fact, an appellate court reviews questions of law de novo. Id. In a

de novo review, the appellate court affords no deference to the trial court’s decision

and independently reviews the record to determine whether summary judgment is

appropriate. Smathers v. Glass, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4595, ¶ 30.

              The parties’ dispute focuses on the “Residence and Possession

Schedule” and “Private School Tuition” provisions of the shared parenting plan. The

“Residence and Possession Schedule” provides that “Mother shall be the residential

parent for school purposes, shall select medical, dental, and mental health
providers, and shall agree to raise the child in the Catholic religion, choosing the

parish in which the child will attend church.” The “Private School Tuition” clause

provides in full that

      Father agrees to pay one-half (1/2) of this expense if Mother decides to
      enroll the child in St. Paschal Baylon. For k-grade 4 Father’s obligation
      shall not be more than $250.00 per month. For grades 5-8 Father’s
      obligation shall not be more than $300.00 per month.

                 A shared parenting plan is a contract subject to the rules of contract

interpretation, with a focus on effecting the parties’ intent as evidenced by the plain

language of the agreement. Glatley v. Glatley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 104884,

104943, and 105179, 2018-Ohio-1077, ¶ 13, citing Maddox v. Maddox, 2016-Ohio-

2908, 65 N.E.3d 88, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.), citing Ellsworth v. Ellsworth, 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-970916, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6225, 6 (Dec. 24, 1988). As we stated in

Richmond v. Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101269, 2015-Ohio-870,

      “[The] court’s role is to give effect to the intent of the parties * * * as
      reflected in the language of the contract.” Jackson v. Jackson, 5th Dist.
      Richland No. 12CA28, 2013-Ohio-3521, ¶ 22.

Id. at ¶ 18. See also Grisafo v. Hollingshead, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107802, 2019-

Ohio-3763, ¶ 22, quoting Rubins v. Rubins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 61937, 1993

Ohio App. LEXIS 1558, 6-7 (Mar. 18, 1993) (“‘The primary principle which courts

must follow is that the contract must be interpreted ‘so as to carry out the intent of

the parties * * *.’ Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co. (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 244, 313

N.E.2d 374.”).

                 In the instant case, a plain reading of the “Residence and Possession

Schedule” and “Private School Tuition” clauses reveals that Mother is responsible
for selecting medical, dental, and mental health providers; Mother is the sole

residential parent for school purposes; the parties agreed to raise J.M.P. in the

Catholic religion; and Mother has the option to enroll J.M.P. at St. Paschal, and that

if Mother decides to do so, Father will pay one half of J.M.P.’s tuition at St. Paschal.

This language clearly demonstrates the intent of the parties: to raise their child in

the Catholic religion and sending him to Catholic school, and Mother, as the sole

residential parent for school purposes, decides where J.M.P. is enrolled in school.

Nowhere in the shared parenting plan does it state that J.M.P. must remain at

Pembroke School until he starts kindergarten at Saint Paschal’s. We may not add

contract terms to which the parties did not agree. Nor may the trial court. See, e.g.,

Urban v. Spriestersbach, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-94-26, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 719,

at 10 (Feb. 28, 1995) (“[A] court is not empowered to give a written agreement a

meaning which is not provided for in the contract language.”).

               Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find no genuine issue of

material fact and reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion — Mother is

authorized under the shared parenting plan to enroll J.M.P. in prekindergarten at

St. Paschal and Father is responsible for half of this tuition expense. The juvenile

court properly granted summary judgment in Mother’s favor and properly denied

Father’s motion to restrain.

               Father’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
               Accordingly, judgment is affirmed.1

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR

      1 At appellate oral argument, the parties represented to this court that J.M.P. was
enrolled at St. Paschal’s after the juvenile court denied Father’s motion to restrain, that
Father has not paid his one-half private school tuition, and that there are two motions to
show cause filed by Mother that have been stayed during the pendency of this appeal.