From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mills v. Mills

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Union County
Feb 24, 1999
Case No. 14-98-41 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 24, 1999)

Opinion

Case No. 14-98-41.

Date of Judgment Entry: February 24, 1999.

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.

JUDGMENT: Judgment affirmed.

ATTORNEYS:

RICK RODGER, For Appellant.

DOROTHY PELANDA, For Appellee.


OPINION


This appeal is taken by plaintiff-appellant Wendy Jo Mills n/k/a Wendy Jo Tinnerello ("Tinnerello") from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County, Domestic Division.

On February 10, 1995, Tinnerello and defendant-appellee Chester E. Mills ("Mills") were divorced. Tinnerello was designated as residential parent of the three minor children and Mills was granted standard visitation. In May or June of 1997, Mills moved to Iowa. On June 9, 1998, Tinnerello filed a motion to restrict companionship, to recalculate child support and to review the health insurance for the children. Tinnerello withdrew the motion to recalculate the child support on July 1, 1998.

On July 2, 1998, the trial court held a hearing on the issues of companionship and the health insurance. The parties agreed that they would equally split any uncovered medical expenses. After some general discussions with the trial court, the parties agreed to a visitation plan by the terms of which Mills would have the children for six weeks in the summer, one week of Christmas vacation and every other Easter break. The trial court then ordered the parties to split the cost of transporting the children for visitation. When Tinnerello complained about the cost on the grounds that she is a homemaker and has no income, the trial court modified its decision and ordered Mills to bear the complete cost of transportation for Easter break and for the parties to split the transportation costs for summer and Christmas visits. It is from this judgment that Tinnerello appeals.

Tinnerello makes the following assignment of error.

The trial court erred in requiring Tinnerello to share in the cost of transportation of the children for purposes of companionship with Mills.

A judgment relating to child custody will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Bechtol v. Bechtol (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 21, 550 N.E.2d 178. An abuse of discretion implies an attitude of the trial court that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140. "A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision." AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597, 601.

In this case, Tinnerello argues that the trial court's decision was unreasonable because it did not take into consideration the fact that she was a homemaker and had no source of income. However, Tinnerello's attorney raised this argument in the trial court. The trial court then considered her argument and modified its ruling so that Tinnerello was no longer required to pay any of the costs for Easter break. A review of the distribution of transportation costs shows that Tinnerello is responsible for one-third (two of the six trips) and Mills is responsible for two-thirds (four of the six trips) of the costs.

Tinnerello argues that this result is unreasonable because the trial court did not review the child support worksheet. However, Tinnerello has not shown how a review of the worksheet would have resulted in a different outcome. Tinnerello argues only that the split is unfair. Yet, absent some specific showing that the trial court's ruling is unreasonable, unconscionable or arbitrary, we perceive no abuse of discretion. Thus, the assignment of error is overruled.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County, Domestic Relations Division is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. SHAW, J., concurs.


I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision. I find that the trial court abused its discretion in allocating the transportation costs of visitation between the mother and father.

In this case, the trial court granted the following visitation to the father: six weeks in the summer, one week at Christmas, and every other Easter break. The trial court then ordered the parties to split the cost of transporting the children for visitation. When the mother complained about the cost of transportation, the court ordered the father to pay for the entire Easter break trip and for the parties to split the summer and Christmas trips.

The standard of review for this case is abuse of discretion, which has been defined as "` * * * more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.'" Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (citations omitted). The majority found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when allocating the transportation costs because it considered the mother's argument that she is a homemaker and assigned the complete cost of the Easter trip to the father. The majority also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the mother did not demonstrate how a review of the child support worksheet would have resulted in a different outcome.

I find Rayner v. Rayner (June 29, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14011, unreported, to be persuasive in this matter. In that case, the Second Appellate District found that a court might reallocate economic burdens such as transportation costs, but that "[t]here is no statute that specifically authorizes the court to decide who shall be responsible for paying the costs of visitation." Transportation expenses are mentioned in R.C. 3113.215(B)(3)(d) as something the trial court can consider when deciding whether to deviate from the child support schedule. The court in Rayner found that "[t]he court's authority to reallocate expenses related to the children typically inheres in the statutes governing child support, and we see no reason to treat visitation expenses differently." The court continued by stating:

This position is buttressed by the fact that though child support is primarily to ensure that the children are able to live at a standard approximating what they would have enjoyed had the marriage continued, it also provides a means of allocating expenses associated with child rearing between the two parents in an equitable way. Use of the statutory guidelines outlined in R.C. 3113.215 is best calculated to guarantee that the costs of child rearing, including transportation costs, are divided between the parents equitably. In concluding, the Rayner court stated that the trial court had no authority to reallocate transportation expenses without first requiring both parties to complete a child support calculation worksheet pursuant to R.C. 3113.215. In its opinion, the Rayner court found that the economic burdens associated with long distance transportation costs are grounded in R.C. 3113.215, not in R.C. 3109.051, the statute authorized the court to make visitation orders.

I agree with this rationale. Specifically, I find that the trial court is required to consider the parties' economic situation prior to allocating transportation costs. In the present case, it appears that the trial court only had a limited knowledge of the financial conditions of the parties. Although a child support worksheet had been recently completed by the child support agency, there was no evidence that the trial court reviewed the new child support calculations when it allocated the transportation expenses. There was also no evidence that the transportation expenses were considered in the child support worksheet. In fact, from a review of the record, it appears that the trial court randomly allocated that transportation costs to the parties. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in allocating the transportation costs to each party without considering any economic evidence. Thus, the trial court made an arbitrary decision that this Court should reverse. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand this matter.


Summaries of

Mills v. Mills

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Union County
Feb 24, 1999
Case No. 14-98-41 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 24, 1999)
Case details for

Mills v. Mills

Case Details

Full title:WENDY JO MILLS N/K/A WENDY JO TINNERELLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. CHESTER…

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Union County

Date published: Feb 24, 1999

Citations

Case No. 14-98-41 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 24, 1999)