COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70847 : ACCELERATED DOCKET LINDA MUDRY : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and v. : : OPINION DENNIS MUDRY : : PER CURIAM Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 8, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Domestic Relations Division of the Common Pleas Court Case No. D-204753 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: LINDA MUDRY, pro se ROBERT J. SINDYLA, ESQ. 245 Arabella Street KERRY M. BUGALA, ESQ. Pittsburgh, PA 15210 7425 Royalton Road N. Royalton, Ohio 44133 STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor ROBERT H. GRANO, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor Support Enforcement Division P.O. Box 93923 Cleveland, Ohio 44101-5923 PATRICK LAVELLE, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LEGAL COUNSEL Allegheny County Family Division Collecting & Disbursing 534 Courthouse Pittsburgh, PA 15219 - 2 - PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Dennis Mudry appeals in this accelerated appeal from an order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division ordering him to pay $4,812 in child support arrearages. Plaintiff-appellee Linda Mudry commenced this matter by filing a motion to determine and liquidate a child support arrearage under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA"). R.C. Chapter 3115. The record shows that the parties were divorced in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1977 shortly after the birth of their daughter Melissa. In the divorce decree the Allegheny County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas ordered Dennis Mudry to pay $125 per month to support Melissa. Dennis Mudry paid only $62.50, during the first month, and nothing more during the following period of over twelve years. Linda Mudry received public assistance payments in Pennsylvania. In 1990, with the assistance of the Allegheny County Family Division Linda Mudry filed a URESA proceeding in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division ("domestic relations court") to enforce Dennis Mudry's child support obligation. The 1990 URESA action ultimately culminated in an agreed judgment entry, pursuant to stipulations between Dennis and Linda Mudry, on February 26, 1991. Paragraph five of the stipulations provides as follows: That as of February 20, 1991 Respondent [Dennis Mudry] owes Petitioner [Linda Mudry] $13,500 for past child - 3 - support, and an amount to the State of Pennsylvania for welfare payments, in an amount to be determined at a later date. The domestic relations court issued a wage withholding order to cover Dennis Mudry's current $125 per month obligation. Current support payments were thereafter made through the Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA") by withholding wages from Dennis Mudry's employers and sending them to Linda Mudry through the Allegheny County Family Division Collecting and Disbursing Office. This wage order did not cover past due support obligations arising from the initial period of more than twelve years; however, Dennis Mudry voluntarily made payments through CSEA toward the arrearage. Linda Mudry filed a subsequent URESA motion on June 6, 1995, prior to the emancipation of Melissa, to determine and liquidate the child support arrearage in the domestic relations court. The matter proceeded to a hearing before the same magistrate who presided over the prior proceeding. The magistrate issued proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The typewritten report of three pages recommended judgment in favor of Linda Mudry in the amount of $4,812. It is not clear what transpired at this hearing because Dennis Mudry has never submitted a transcript of the proceedings. However, this amount was equal to the difference between Dennis Mudry's total support obligations under the Pennsylvania divorce decree and the amount he actually paid. The - 4 - arrearage was calculated as follows: the $24,875 total obligation 1 less $20,063 total payments = $4,812 arrearage. In a one-page objection to the referee's report, Dennis Mudry, pro se, argued, inter alia, that the domestic relations court improperly ignored its prior judgment in the 1990 URESA proceeding. Dennis Mudry's objections were not supported by a transcript of the 2 evidence presented at the hearing. Dennis Mudry simply argued that the referee should have used the child support arrearage stipulated in 1991 rather than the actual arrearage. In an order journalized May 22, 1996, the domestic relations court overruled Dennis Mudry's objections and adopted the referee's recommendations. Dennis Mudry raises the following three assignments of error in this accelerated appeal: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RETROACTIVELY MODIFIED OR ABROGATED THE PARTIES [SIC] AGREED JUDGMENT ENTRY REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION AS THE RESPONDING COURT IN A URESA PROCEEDING. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RETROACTIVELY MODIFIED OR ABROGATED THE PARTIES [SIC] AGREED JUDGMENT ENTRY REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES. 1 The total support obligation was calculated as follows: 199 months x $125/month = $24, 875. The total payments were $62.50 paid by Dennis Mudry + $20,000.50 paid through CSEA for a total of $20,063. 2 Dennis Mudry's failure to submit a transcript of evidence or other adequate record of the arrearage hearing limits review by this court to whether the domestic relations court abused its discretion by adopting the referee's report. State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 (court may review whether the trial court properly applied the law, but not factual issues in the case). - 5 - THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND ENFORCE THE PARTIES' FEBRUARY 21, 1991 AGREED JUDGMENT ENTRY AND SAID ERROR IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. These assignments lack merit. Dennis Mudry argues the domestic relations court lacked jurisdiction to enter its judgment concerning the child support arrearages and improperly ignored its own prior judgment and the parties' stipulations in the 1990 URESA proceeding. These arguments involve the common contention that the court was bound by the amount of the arrearage stipulated to by the parties in February 1991. Dennis Mudry argues that the court should have used the $13,500 stipulated arrearage figure rather than the $18,552.50 arrearage actually outstanding as of that date in February, 1991. It is well established that the responding court in a URESA proceeding (in this case the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division) has authority to enforce the current and past child support obligations established in the divorce decree of the initiating state (in this case the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas). San Diego v. Elavsky (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 81; Patton v. Brill (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 826; Casale v. Casale (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 118. In the URESA proceeding, however, the responding court has no authority to modify the amount of the child support obligations previously determined in the initiating court (in this case the Allegheny County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas). Even if the February 1991 order could be construed, as Dennis Mudry suggests, to alter his child support obligation, the domestic relations court lacked authority to do so. - 6 - Nor could the parties freely stipulate to modify the obligation. Parents' rights to waive child support obligations concerning their minor children are limited. This is particularly true when one parent is receiving public child welfare benefit payments to support the child when the other parent is not making court-ordered child support payments. McDonnold v. McDonnold (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 822. In these circumstances, the parent with the child is required to assign to the state the right to support from the non-paying parent as of the date the welfare benefit payments commence. Thereafter, the state paying the child welfare benefit payments, rather than the parent with the child, has the right to recover the amount of the support payments from the non-paying parent. The parent with the child cannot forgive child support obligations from the non-paying parent because this right to collect child support has been assigned to the state paying child welfare benefit payments. The stipulations of the Dennis and Linda Mudry in the 1990 URESA proceeding recognized the divided interest of Linda Mudry and the State of Pennsylvania in this case as follows: That as of February 20, 1991 Respondent [Dennis Mudry] owes Petitioner [Linda Mudry] $13,500 for past child support, and an amount to the State of Pennsylvania for welfare payments, in an amount to be determined at a later date. By its own terms, this stipulation recognized that calculation of the total amount of Dennis Mudry's child support indebtedness would be reserved for a future date. Dennis Mudry has not shown that any error occurred in the calculation, that he did not receive credit - 7 - for all payments made, or that he was entitled to the windfall he seeks in this case. Finally, because of Dennis Mudry's failure to submit a transcript of the arrearage hearing, this court is precluded from considering his remaining argument concerning the manifest weight of the evidence. State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, supra. Accordingly, Dennis Mudry's three assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 8 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Domestic Relations Division of the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, PRESIDING JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .