Hancock v. Crook

[Cite as Hancock v. Crook, 2014-Ohio-5106.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Kevyn Hancock, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

No. 14AP-332

v. : (C.P.C. No. 13JU-12500)

Devina Crook, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Defendant-Appellee. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on November 18, 2014

Kevin Hancock, pro se.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,

Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch

CONNOR, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Kevyn Hancock, appeals from a judgment of the

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile

Branch, in favor of defendant-appellee, Devina Crook. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On September 11, 2013, appellant filed a Pro Se "Complaint to Approve,

Adopt and Modify/Terminate Child Support," seeking the modification of a

September 29, 2011 administrative order of child support and medical support for

appellant's minor child, Karsyn L. Hancock. Karsyn was born to appellee, Davina Cook,

on February 28, 2011. Appellant's complaint seeks a reduction of monthly child support

to $400, and an alternating allocation of the yearly child dependency exemption. On

No. 14AP-332 2

March 6, 2014, appellee filed a waiver of service of summons and a magistrate of the court

held a hearing on the matter.

{¶ 3} On March 11, 2014, the magistrate issued a decision recommending

approval and adoption of the September 29, 2011 order, without modification. Appellant

did not file an objection to the magistrate's decision. On March 24, 2014, the trial court

issued a "Judgment Entry & Magistrate's Decision Judgment Entry," which states:

The Court adopts the magistrate's decision and approves the

same, unless specifically modified or vacated, and enters the

same as a mater of record, and includes same as the Court's

judgment herein.

{¶ 4} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this court on April 22, 2014.

B. Assignments of Error

{¶ 5} Appellant's two assignments of error are as follows:

[I.] The magistrate only credited me $3,900.00 yearly for the

care of Kaniah (Hancock vs. Crook Exhibit 6). The amount

should read $5,090.04 yearly for Kaniah's support (Hancock

vs. Crook Exhibit 3, page 2).

[II.] The magistrate granted the defendant, Devina Crook

$1,518.40 for health insurance and $7,950.00 for child care

without the defendant proving or providing any

documentation.

C. Standard of Review

{¶ 6} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) provides that "[a] party may file written objections to a

magistrate's decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the

court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.

53(D)(4)(e)(i)." "[I]f no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate's

decision, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the

face of the magistrate's decision." Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c).

{¶ 7} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) entitled "Waiver of right to assign adoption by court

as error on appeal" specifically states that "[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall

not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal

conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law

under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as

No. 14AP-332 3

required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)." (Emphasis added.) Appellant did not file objections to

the magistrate's decision in this case. Accordingly, we must review appellant's

assignments of error under plain error standard.

{¶ 8} In the context of a civil appeal, "an appellate court only applies the plain-

error doctrine if the asserted error 'seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying

judicial process itself.' " Claffey v. Natl. City Bank, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-95, 2011-Ohio-

4926, ¶ 15, quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 123 (1997). For example, a

trial court commits plain error by excluding a child's father from a case plan where the

county children services board knew father's identity and approximate whereabouts at the

time it filed the dependency and neglect complaint. In re S.R., 9th Dist. No. 27209, 2014-

Ohio-2749, ¶ 26.

D. Legal Analysis

{¶ 9} In ruling that appellant was not entitled to a modification of the existing

child support order, the magistrate determined that appellant did not demonstrate a

sufficient change in circumstances to justify modification. Specifically, the magistrate

found that the recalculated support order was not more than ten percent less than the

amount of child support required to be paid pursuant to the existing child support order.

R.C. 3119.79. In ruling that appellant was not entitled to a reallocation of the child

dependency exemption, the magistrate found that appellant failed to produce evidence

that a reallocation would produce a greater net tax savings. The trial court, finding no

error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, adopted the

magistrate's decision as the judgment of the court.

{¶ 10} We note that appellant's assignments of error speak only to the decision of

the magistrate. Appellant does not allege that the trial court erred when it adopted the

magistrate's decision. Indeed, the errors that appellant raises in this appeal are not the

sort of errors that would be apparent on the face of the magistrate's decision. Thus, we

perceive no error on the part of the trial court in this instance.

{¶ 11} Moreover, even if we were to conclude that the magistrate committed the

errors alleged by appellant, such errors do not " 'seriously affect the basic fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of

No. 14AP-332 4

the underlying judicial process itself.' " Blevins v. Blevins, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-175, 2014-

Ohio-3933, ¶ 13, quoting Goldfuss. Accordingly, the errors alleged by appellant in this

appeal do not rise to the level of plain error. See, e.g., Blevins at ¶ 24 (Appellant's

assertion that the trial court erred by reducing appellee's child support obligation without

cause and against the best interest of the children does not raise plain error); In re J.P.-

M., 9th Dist. No. 23694, 2007-Ohio-5412 (Trial court's refusal to remove child's guardian

due to allegations of bias does not rise to the level of plain error); Lingnau v. Lingnau, 5th

Dist. No. 10-15-2012, 2012-Ohio-4779 (In the context of a motion to modify child support,

an appellate court will not invoke the defense of res judicata under the plain error

standard where former husband failed to raise the defense either directly to the

magistrate or in his written objections to the magistrate's decision); Phillips v. Phillips,

9th Dist. No. 13CA010358, 2014-Ohio-248 (Trial court's failure to appoint a guardian ad

litem for minor children does not rise to level of plain error even though statutory law

mandates the appointment when requested by either parent).

{¶ 12} Because appellant failed to object to the magistrate's decision and because

the assigned errors do not rise to the level of plain error, we overrule each of appellant's

assignments of error. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv).

{¶ 13} Having ruled that appellant waived the assigned errors, we affirm the

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations,

Juvenile Branch.

Judgment affirmed.

BROWN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.

_________________