The opinion
[Cite as Woodford v. Woodford, 2023-Ohio-193.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Chad N. Woodford, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 21AP-256
v. : (C.P.C. No. 18DR-1824)
Danielle L. Woodford, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellee. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on January 24, 2023
On brief: Wolinetz, Horvath & Brown, LLC, Dennis E.
Horvath, and Eric M. Brown, for appellant.
On brief: Grossman Law Offices, and Tracy A. Younkin, for
appellee.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
Division of Domestic Relations
BEATTY BLUNT, P.J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Chad N. Woodford, appeals the May 15, 2021 decision of
the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations ordering the
trial record and shared parenting decree issued on July 6, 2020 in this case to be
supplemented with a child support worksheet pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A). Appellant argues
that the trial court erred by supplementing the trial record with a child support worksheet
as the case was already under appeal.
{¶ 2} On the date that the trial court issued its order, this court had before it
appellant’s separate appeal in Woodford v. Woodford, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-377, 2022-
No. 21AP-256 2
Ohio-3656 ("Woodford I"), in which the appellant had asserted that the trial court erred by
failing to include a child support worksheet in the record. On October 13, 2022, we issued
our decision in Woodford I, and held that the trial court erred by failing to attach a copy of
the child support worksheet to its shared parenting decree. Id. at ¶ 23-27. We reversed the
trial court’s decision and remanded the case with the instruction to "review the award and
deviation, along with the child support worksheet previously relied upon, and determine
whether the award comports with the calculations therein; if it does, it should reenter its
prior judgment and make the worksheet used part of the record of the case." Id. at ¶ 28.
We also observed that our decision in Woodford I had "the likely effect of mooting the
appeal presented" in this case. Id. at ¶ 28, fn. 2.
{¶ 3} On review, we conclude that our decision in Woodford I has already
determined the issues raised in this cause. We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot.
Appeal dismissed.
DORRIAN and MENTEL, JJ., concur.