[Cite as Whaley v. Hancock, 2013-Ohio-1648.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BLAINE WHALEY JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. and Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. STARK COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY Case No. 2012CA00136
Appellants OPINION -vs-
GERROD HANCOCK
Appellee
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2009JCV00288
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 22, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee For Appellant - Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency
HEATHER A. SMITH ALICIA L. BOYLE Smith Reed, LLC. Stark Co. Child Support Enforcement Canton Daily News Building P.O. Box 21337 401 Tuscarawas Street West, Suite 300 Canton, Ohio 44701 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Appellant Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency appeals the
June 26, 2012 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas,
Family Court Division, in favor of Appellee Gerrod Hancock.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE1
{¶2} Appellee Gerrod Hancock is the father of a minor child, born November
11, 2007. Appellee has been ordered to pay child support in the amount of $349.14 per
month, with or without private health insurance, effective March 12, 2009. Appellee was
also ordered to provide private health insurance for the minor child or pay the additional
amount of $64.58 per month through Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency
(CSEA) toward a cash medical account.
{¶3} On March 8, 2012, Appellee filed a motion with the trial court herein to
determine arrearages/overpayment. Specifically, Appellee sought a credit for derivative
Social Security benefits paid directly to the mother of the child for the benefit of the
minor child due to Appellee's award of Social Security Disability due to a temporary
disability. It is undisputed the minor child received derivative social security benefits
from November of 2010, through October of 2011, totaling $14,092.00. The benefits
were not collected through CSEA; rather, sent directly from the Social Security
Administration to the child's mother.
{¶4} The matter proceeded to hearing on June 26, 2012. Via Judgment Entry
of the same date, the trial court ordered Appellee is entitled to a credit on his monthly
child support obligation for those months the minor child received derivative benefit
1 A full rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 3
payments. The trial court further ordered Appellee is entitled to full credit toward his
cash medical account and processing fee obligations from the disability derivative
benefits paid to the minor child. Accordingly, the trial court ordered CSEA to apply the
derivative benefits received to both Appellee's cash medical account and child support
obligations, as well as, the processing fees. The trial court credited any overpayment to
future support and cash medical account obligations.
{¶5} Appellant Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency now appeals,
assigning as error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED CSEA TO GIVE
APPELLEE CREDIT AGAINST JFS-ASSIGNED CASH MEDICAL ARREARS FOR
DERIVATIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS PAID DIRECTLY TO
APPELLANT/MOTHER.”
I.
{¶7} In Williams v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 441 (2008), the Ohio Supreme
Court, in considering whether to credit social security benefits paid to dependent
children to an obligor’s child support obligation, held,
{¶8} “We have found that '[t]he overwhelming majority of states that have
considered this issue allow a credit for Social Security benefits paid to dependent
children.' Pontbriand v. Pontbriand (R.I.1993), 622 A.2d 482, 484. See, also,
Annotation, Right to Credit on Child Support Payments for Social Security or Other
Government Dependency Payments Made for Benefit of Child (1995), 34 A.L.R. 5th
447. We believe that this is the more equitable result. Therefore, we join those Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 4
jurisdictions that permit a disabled parent's child support obligation to be directly set off
by Social Security payments received on behalf of the minor child.
{¶9} "In so doing, we reject the reasoning espoused by the court of appeals
and the arguments made by appellee. Contrary to appellee's position, the Social
Security payments made on the child's behalf are not mere gratuities from the federal
government, nor do they constitute earnings by the child under R.C. 3113.215(B)(3)(f).
Instead, the payments arise simply because the obligor has paid into the Social Security
system and was found to be disabled. As stated by the Supreme Court of Alaska in
Miller v. Miller (1995), 890 P.2d 574, 576: '[T]he employee, who throughout his working
life has contributed part of the premiums in the form of deductions from his wages or
salary, should be deemed to have a vested right to the payments prescribed by the
statutory scheme, which in effect comprises the terms of the insurance policy. He has
earned the benefits; he is not receiving a gift.' We agree with this rationale and find that
Social Security payments are tantamount to earnings by the disabled parent.
{¶10} "Furthermore, it is illogical to suggest that the granting of a credit will result
in a windfall to the obligor and will penalize the child by providing that child with less
money for his or her support. In essence, 'a credit for * * * Social Security benefits does
not retroactively modify the disabled parent's monthly child support obligation; it merely
changes the source of the payments.' In re Marriage of Cowan (1996), 279 Mont. 491,
500, 928 P.2d 214, 220. Therefore, where the disabled parent has no other source of
income due to his or her disability, the receipt of Social Security payments actually
ensures that the obligor's child support obligation will be at least satisfied. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 5
{¶11} "Consequently, we hold that a disabled parent is entitled to a full credit in
his or her child support obligation for Social Security payments received by a minor
child. Accordingly, appellant's child support obligation shall be set off by those Social
Security payments received on Jessica's behalf. Since the amount of Social Security
payments Jessica received exceeds what appellant owed, the trial court shall enter
judgment reflecting that no child support is owed from the time she first received the
Social Security benefits."
{¶12} Appellee argues the holding in Williams should be extended to provide
credit for derivative benefits paid against his cash medical account obligation. CSEA
argues the Court in Williams never contemplated such cash medical account payments
because they were not part of Ohio law until many years later. CSEA asserts it would
be inequitable to credit Appellee for the derivative benefits paid and never received by
the State, as the State has continued to provide cash medical benefits to the minor
child.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Whaley v. Hancock, 2013-Ohio-1648.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BLAINE WHALEY JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. and Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. STARK COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY Case No. 2012CA00136
Appellants OPINION -vs-
GERROD HANCOCK
Appellee
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2009JCV00288
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 22, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee For Appellant - Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency
HEATHER A. SMITH ALICIA L. BOYLE Smith Reed, LLC. Stark Co. Child Support Enforcement Canton Daily News Building P.O. Box 21337 401 Tuscarawas Street West, Suite 300 Canton, Ohio 44701 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Appellant Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency appeals the
June 26, 2012 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas,
Family Court Division, in favor of Appellee Gerrod Hancock.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE1
{¶2} Appellee Gerrod Hancock is the father of a minor child, born November
11, 2007. Appellee has been ordered to pay child support in the amount of $349.14 per
month, with or without private health insurance, effective March 12, 2009. Appellee was
also ordered to provide private health insurance for the minor child or pay the additional
amount of $64.58 per month through Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency
(CSEA) toward a cash medical account.
{¶3} On March 8, 2012, Appellee filed a motion with the trial court herein to
determine arrearages/overpayment. Specifically, Appellee sought a credit for derivative
Social Security benefits paid directly to the mother of the child for the benefit of the
minor child due to Appellee's award of Social Security Disability due to a temporary
disability. It is undisputed the minor child received derivative social security benefits
from November of 2010, through October of 2011, totaling $14,092.00. The benefits
were not collected through CSEA; rather, sent directly from the Social Security
Administration to the child's mother.
{¶4} The matter proceeded to hearing on June 26, 2012. Via Judgment Entry
of the same date, the trial court ordered Appellee is entitled to a credit on his monthly
child support obligation for those months the minor child received derivative benefit
1 A full rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 3
payments. The trial court further ordered Appellee is entitled to full credit toward his
cash medical account and processing fee obligations from the disability derivative
benefits paid to the minor child. Accordingly, the trial court ordered CSEA to apply the
derivative benefits received to both Appellee's cash medical account and child support
obligations, as well as, the processing fees. The trial court credited any overpayment to
future support and cash medical account obligations.
{¶5} Appellant Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency now appeals,
assigning as error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED CSEA TO GIVE
APPELLEE CREDIT AGAINST JFS-ASSIGNED CASH MEDICAL ARREARS FOR
DERIVATIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS PAID DIRECTLY TO
APPELLANT/MOTHER.”
I.
{¶7} In Williams v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 441 (2008), the Ohio Supreme
Court, in considering whether to credit social security benefits paid to dependent
children to an obligor’s child support obligation, held,
{¶8} “We have found that '[t]he overwhelming majority of states that have
considered this issue allow a credit for Social Security benefits paid to dependent
children.' Pontbriand v. Pontbriand (R.I.1993), 622 A.2d 482, 484. See, also,
Annotation, Right to Credit on Child Support Payments for Social Security or Other
Government Dependency Payments Made for Benefit of Child (1995), 34 A.L.R. 5th
447. We believe that this is the more equitable result. Therefore, we join those Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 4
jurisdictions that permit a disabled parent's child support obligation to be directly set off
by Social Security payments received on behalf of the minor child.
{¶9} "In so doing, we reject the reasoning espoused by the court of appeals
and the arguments made by appellee. Contrary to appellee's position, the Social
Security payments made on the child's behalf are not mere gratuities from the federal
government, nor do they constitute earnings by the child under R.C. 3113.215(B)(3)(f).
Instead, the payments arise simply because the obligor has paid into the Social Security
system and was found to be disabled. As stated by the Supreme Court of Alaska in
Miller v. Miller (1995), 890 P.2d 574, 576: '[T]he employee, who throughout his working
life has contributed part of the premiums in the form of deductions from his wages or
salary, should be deemed to have a vested right to the payments prescribed by the
statutory scheme, which in effect comprises the terms of the insurance policy. He has
earned the benefits; he is not receiving a gift.' We agree with this rationale and find that
Social Security payments are tantamount to earnings by the disabled parent.
{¶10} "Furthermore, it is illogical to suggest that the granting of a credit will result
in a windfall to the obligor and will penalize the child by providing that child with less
money for his or her support. In essence, 'a credit for * * * Social Security benefits does
not retroactively modify the disabled parent's monthly child support obligation; it merely
changes the source of the payments.' In re Marriage of Cowan (1996), 279 Mont. 491,
500, 928 P.2d 214, 220. Therefore, where the disabled parent has no other source of
income due to his or her disability, the receipt of Social Security payments actually
ensures that the obligor's child support obligation will be at least satisfied. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 5
{¶11} "Consequently, we hold that a disabled parent is entitled to a full credit in
his or her child support obligation for Social Security payments received by a minor
child. Accordingly, appellant's child support obligation shall be set off by those Social
Security payments received on Jessica's behalf. Since the amount of Social Security
payments Jessica received exceeds what appellant owed, the trial court shall enter
judgment reflecting that no child support is owed from the time she first received the
Social Security benefits."
{¶12} Appellee argues the holding in Williams should be extended to provide
credit for derivative benefits paid against his cash medical account obligation. CSEA
argues the Court in Williams never contemplated such cash medical account payments
because they were not part of Ohio law until many years later. CSEA asserts it would
be inequitable to credit Appellee for the derivative benefits paid and never received by
the State, as the State has continued to provide cash medical benefits to the minor
child.
{¶13} Upon review of the holding in Williams, we agree with the rationale set
forth by that Court finding Social Security payments are tantamount to earnings by the
disabled parent. Where, as here, the disabled parent has no other source of income
due to his or her disability, we find the receipt of Social Security payments ensures both
the obligor's child support obligation and cash medical accounts payments will be
satisfied. The payment of the benefits directly to the child's mother instead of directly to
the CSEA does not change the fulfillment of the obligation.
{¶14} We find the trial court did not err in crediting Appellee for the payments
made and in applying future credits to both of Appelle’s obligations. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 6
{¶15} The sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} The June 26, 2012 Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common
Pleas, Family Court Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00136 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BLAINE WHALEY : : and : : STARK COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT : ENFORCEMENT AGENCY : : Appellants : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : GERROD HANCOCK : : Appellee : Case No. 2012CA00136
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the June 26, 2012 Judgment
Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, is
affirmed. Costs to Appellant Stark County Child Support Enforcement Agency.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER