[Cite as Freeman v. Freeman, 2022-Ohio-3222.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHRISTINA MARIE FREEMAN : JUDGES: : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : JEFFREY MICHAEL FREEMAN : Case No. 22CAF020013 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 16DSC080380
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 13, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
TODD A. WORKMAN ANTHONY M. HEALD 35 North Sandusky Street 125 North Sandusky Street Delaware, OH 43015 Delaware, OH 43015 Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 2
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey Michael Freeman, appeals the January 11,
2022 judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, Domestic
Relations Division, upholding a provision in the parties' separation agreement pertaining
to spousal support. Plaintiff-Appellee is Christina Marie Freeman.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} Appellant and appellee received a dissolution on October 6, 2016. They
are the parents of ten children. Seven were minors at the time of the dissolution.
Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution, appellant agreed
to pay appellee one dollar per year in spousal support. He also agreed to pay appellee
child support in the amount of $2,166.67 per month plus $43.23 for processing charges.
The child support obligation was to continue until appellant reached the age of 67. In the
event child support was reduced prior to appellant attaining the age of 67, he agreed his
spousal support obligation would increase by an amount necessary to keep paying
appellee $2,166.67 per month. The spousal support award was to be paid regardless of
appellee's cohabitation or remarriage until appellant turned 67. The agreement did not
give the trial court continuing jurisdiction over spousal support.
{¶ 3} On May 14, 2019, the agreement was modified; however, no changes were
made to the support provisions of the agreement.
{¶ 4} In October 2019, appellant requested an administrative review of his child
support obligation. In November 2019, the Delaware County Child Support Enforcement
Agency issued a recommendation reducing the child support amount, but increasing the
spousal support amount to keep the monthly support obligation at the same amount per Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 3
the separation agreement ($2,166.67). Appellant requested a court hearing on the
recommendation.
{¶ 5} A hearing before a magistrate was held on January 29, 2021. By decision
filed June 9, 2021, the magistrate found the provisions in the separation agreement were
enforceable, and ordered appellant to pay less child support, but more spousal support,
for a continued payment of $2,166.67 per month, plus processing charges.
{¶ 6} Appellant filed objections, challenging the magistrate's decision the
provision in the separation agreement setting his support order at a fixed amount of
$2,166.67 was enforceable. By judgment entry filed January 11, 2022, the trial court
overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate's decision, and incorporated the
magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶ 7} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶ 8} "THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND
PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THAT
THE TRANSFER OF PAYMENTS (WHETHER REFERRED TO AS CHILD SUPPORT
OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT) COULD NOT BE MODIFIED REGARDLESS AND IN SPITE
OF SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL AND FACTUAL CHANGES THAT HAD HAPPENED
AND/OR EXISTED FROM THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER."
II
{¶ 9} "THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND
PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PREVENTING A Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 4
REALISTIC REVIEW OF CHILD SUPPORT BY RELYING ON THE 'AUTOMATIC
TRIGGER' PROVISION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 5.3 OF THE DECREE OF
DISSOLUTION WAS ENFORCEABLE REGARDLESS AND IN SPITE OF THE
FINANCIAL AND FACTUAL CHANGES THAT HAD HAPPENED AND/OR EXISTED IN
THIS CASE."
III
{¶ 10} "THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND
PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO
CONSIDER THE VARIOUS FACTUAL ISSUES TESTIFIED ABOUT IN DETERMINING
THE PROPER AMOUNT OF ANY TRANSFER OF PAYMENTS."
I, II, III
{¶ 11} In his three assignments of error, appellant is challenging the trial court's
decision to enforce the provisions of the separation agreement. Appellant argues the trial
court abused its discretion in finding his support payment could not be modified and in
failing to consider the factual issues. We disagree.
{¶ 12} In the parties' separation agreement, Section 5 governs parental rights and
responsibilities. Subsection 5.3 states the following:
CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS
Effective July 26, 2015, Father shall pay to Mother, as a deviation
from the child support guidelines, as and for child support for the minor
children, the monthly amount of $1,000 biweekly ($2,166.67 per month),
plus 2% ($43.33 per month) processing charge * * *. Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 5
In the event child support is reduced prior to Father reaching the age
of 67, Husband's spousal support to Wife shall be immediately increased
so that Father pays Mother a total monthly net support (after taxes) of at
least $1,000.00 biweekly, regardless of Wife's cohabitation or remarriage.
Spousal support shall terminate only upon biweekly payments until
Husband turns age 67.
Father's full child support obligation ($1,000 biweekly) shall continue
until Father tuns age 67.
{¶ 13} Section 6 provides for spousal support and states: "Father shall pay Mother
spousal support in the amount of one dollar per year. This spousal support shall terminate
upon Father turning age 67 and shall only be modifiable under the circumstances stated
upon in the child support provision."
{¶ 14} Under Section 13, each party acknowledged "they had the right and
opportunity to seek advice of legal counsel of their own choosing free of any interference
from the other." Appellant signed an acknowledgment of legal separation, stating he
understood the attorney of record represented only appellee and did not represent him.
He understood he had the right to retain his own attorney to advise him and represent his
interest. Appellant did not retain his own counsel.
{¶ 15} Section 17 of the agreement states the following:
FULL UNDERSTANDING: This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all agreements Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 6
previously made by them prior to the signing of this agreement. Each party
fully understands all of the terms set forth herein, and that all of said terms
represent and constitute the entire understanding between them, and that
each has thoroughly read this Agreement and finds the same to be in
accordance with his and her understanding; each party does voluntarily
execute this Agreement and affix his and her signature hereto in the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Freeman v. Freeman, 2022-Ohio-3222.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHRISTINA MARIE FREEMAN : JUDGES: : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : JEFFREY MICHAEL FREEMAN : Case No. 22CAF020013 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 16DSC080380
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 13, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
TODD A. WORKMAN ANTHONY M. HEALD 35 North Sandusky Street 125 North Sandusky Street Delaware, OH 43015 Delaware, OH 43015 Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 2
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey Michael Freeman, appeals the January 11,
2022 judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, Domestic
Relations Division, upholding a provision in the parties' separation agreement pertaining
to spousal support. Plaintiff-Appellee is Christina Marie Freeman.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} Appellant and appellee received a dissolution on October 6, 2016. They
are the parents of ten children. Seven were minors at the time of the dissolution.
Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution, appellant agreed
to pay appellee one dollar per year in spousal support. He also agreed to pay appellee
child support in the amount of $2,166.67 per month plus $43.23 for processing charges.
The child support obligation was to continue until appellant reached the age of 67. In the
event child support was reduced prior to appellant attaining the age of 67, he agreed his
spousal support obligation would increase by an amount necessary to keep paying
appellee $2,166.67 per month. The spousal support award was to be paid regardless of
appellee's cohabitation or remarriage until appellant turned 67. The agreement did not
give the trial court continuing jurisdiction over spousal support.
{¶ 3} On May 14, 2019, the agreement was modified; however, no changes were
made to the support provisions of the agreement.
{¶ 4} In October 2019, appellant requested an administrative review of his child
support obligation. In November 2019, the Delaware County Child Support Enforcement
Agency issued a recommendation reducing the child support amount, but increasing the
spousal support amount to keep the monthly support obligation at the same amount per Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 3
the separation agreement ($2,166.67). Appellant requested a court hearing on the
recommendation.
{¶ 5} A hearing before a magistrate was held on January 29, 2021. By decision
filed June 9, 2021, the magistrate found the provisions in the separation agreement were
enforceable, and ordered appellant to pay less child support, but more spousal support,
for a continued payment of $2,166.67 per month, plus processing charges.
{¶ 6} Appellant filed objections, challenging the magistrate's decision the
provision in the separation agreement setting his support order at a fixed amount of
$2,166.67 was enforceable. By judgment entry filed January 11, 2022, the trial court
overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate's decision, and incorporated the
magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶ 7} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶ 8} "THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND
PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THAT
THE TRANSFER OF PAYMENTS (WHETHER REFERRED TO AS CHILD SUPPORT
OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT) COULD NOT BE MODIFIED REGARDLESS AND IN SPITE
OF SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL AND FACTUAL CHANGES THAT HAD HAPPENED
AND/OR EXISTED FROM THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER."
II
{¶ 9} "THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND
PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PREVENTING A Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 4
REALISTIC REVIEW OF CHILD SUPPORT BY RELYING ON THE 'AUTOMATIC
TRIGGER' PROVISION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 5.3 OF THE DECREE OF
DISSOLUTION WAS ENFORCEABLE REGARDLESS AND IN SPITE OF THE
FINANCIAL AND FACTUAL CHANGES THAT HAD HAPPENED AND/OR EXISTED IN
THIS CASE."
III
{¶ 10} "THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND
PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO
CONSIDER THE VARIOUS FACTUAL ISSUES TESTIFIED ABOUT IN DETERMINING
THE PROPER AMOUNT OF ANY TRANSFER OF PAYMENTS."
I, II, III
{¶ 11} In his three assignments of error, appellant is challenging the trial court's
decision to enforce the provisions of the separation agreement. Appellant argues the trial
court abused its discretion in finding his support payment could not be modified and in
failing to consider the factual issues. We disagree.
{¶ 12} In the parties' separation agreement, Section 5 governs parental rights and
responsibilities. Subsection 5.3 states the following:
CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS
Effective July 26, 2015, Father shall pay to Mother, as a deviation
from the child support guidelines, as and for child support for the minor
children, the monthly amount of $1,000 biweekly ($2,166.67 per month),
plus 2% ($43.33 per month) processing charge * * *. Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 5
In the event child support is reduced prior to Father reaching the age
of 67, Husband's spousal support to Wife shall be immediately increased
so that Father pays Mother a total monthly net support (after taxes) of at
least $1,000.00 biweekly, regardless of Wife's cohabitation or remarriage.
Spousal support shall terminate only upon biweekly payments until
Husband turns age 67.
Father's full child support obligation ($1,000 biweekly) shall continue
until Father tuns age 67.
{¶ 13} Section 6 provides for spousal support and states: "Father shall pay Mother
spousal support in the amount of one dollar per year. This spousal support shall terminate
upon Father turning age 67 and shall only be modifiable under the circumstances stated
upon in the child support provision."
{¶ 14} Under Section 13, each party acknowledged "they had the right and
opportunity to seek advice of legal counsel of their own choosing free of any interference
from the other." Appellant signed an acknowledgment of legal separation, stating he
understood the attorney of record represented only appellee and did not represent him.
He understood he had the right to retain his own attorney to advise him and represent his
interest. Appellant did not retain his own counsel.
{¶ 15} Section 17 of the agreement states the following:
FULL UNDERSTANDING: This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all agreements Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 6
previously made by them prior to the signing of this agreement. Each party
fully understands all of the terms set forth herein, and that all of said terms
represent and constitute the entire understanding between them, and that
each has thoroughly read this Agreement and finds the same to be in
accordance with his and her understanding; each party does voluntarily
execute this Agreement and affix his and her signature hereto in the
presence of the witness indicated below.
{¶ 16} Appellant now argues because circumstances have changed, his child
support should be reduced and the spousal support award should not be increased per
the separation agreement.
{¶ 17} R.C. 3105.18 governs spousal support. Subsection (E)(2) specifically
states in pertinent part:
[T]he court that enters the decree of divorce or dissolution of
marriage does not have jurisdiction to modify the amount or terms of the
alimony or spousal support unless the court determines that the
circumstances of either party have changed and * * * [i]n the case of a
dissolution of marriage, the separation agreement that is approved by the
court and incorporated into the decree contains a provision specifically
authorizing the court to modify the amount or terms of alimony or spousal
support. Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 7
{¶ 18} As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Morris v. Morris, 148 Ohio St.3d
138, 2016-Ohio-5002, ¶ 57:
In R.C. 3105.18(E), the General Assembly has established the limits
of a trial court's jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support. And a
party's request for modification falls within those statutory limits only if the
parties agree or the court orders that jurisdiction be reserved. In other
words, the trial court must first determine whether the decree of divorce or
dissolution contains a reservation of jurisdiction. If the trial court lacks
jurisdiction to modify, then the inquiry of the court ends there.
{¶ 19} The separation agreement in this case expressly declined to give the trial
court jurisdiction to modify the spousal support award. Pursuant to Morris, "the inquiry of
the court ends there." The trial court in fact reduced appellant's child support obligation
as requested, and then increased the spousal support obligation to conform to Section
5.3 of the separation agreement, an agreement appellant acknowledged reading and
understanding.
{¶ 20} Appellant argues the trial court failed to consider the increased health care
premiums and childcare expenses he pays out. Appellant did not raise this issue in his
objections. While he mentioned having to pay increased health care premiums and
childcare expenses, appellant objected to the magistrate's finding on the enforceability of
Section 5.3 of the separation agreement. In his supplemental objections filed August 19,
2021, appellant specifically stated he "confirms that he does not object to the remaining Delaware County, Case No. 22CAF020013 8
conclusions made by the Court in its Decision dated June 9, 2021." "Failure to raise an
issue before the trial court operates as a waiver of a party's right to assert such for the
first time on appeal." In re Adoption of C.A.H., 5th Dist. Knox No. 19 CA 000037, 2020-
Ohio-1260, ¶ 18, citing Hadley v. Figley, 5th Dist. Ashland App. No. 15-COA-001, 2015-
Ohio-4600, ¶ 22. Appellant has not argued plain error. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv).
{¶ 21} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this matter.
{¶ 22} Assignments of Error I, II, and III are denied.
{¶ 23} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio,
Domestic Relations Division, is hereby affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, P.J.
Wise, John, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
EEW/db