Citta-Pietrolungo v. Pietrolungo9/15/2005
{ } Defendant-appellant, Joseph F. Pietrolungo ("father"), appeals the trial court's decision modifying his child support obligation. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
{ } The parties were divorced in 1997 and the father was ordered to pay plaintiff-appellee, Thelma Citta-Pietrolungo ("mother"), $7,300 per month for the benefit of their three children.
{ } In September 2000 and again in April 2001, the father moved to modify his child support obligation based on a change of circumstances, i.e., his income had significantly decreased since the divorce, the mother's income had significantly increased, the current support obligation exceeded the children's needs, and the current support was not in the children's best interest.
{ } The magistrate conducted a hearing on the motions in 2002 and recommended that the court deny the father's 2000 motion because the change of circumstances alleged did not yield a ten percent difference between the previous and the recalculated child support worksheets. However, the magistrate recommended that the court grant the father's 2001 motion, modifying his support payment from $7,300 per month to $1,500 per month per child.
{ } Both parties filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court modified the magistrate's decision by granting both motions for modification and ordering the father to pay $6,000 per month ($2,000 per month per child, plus the 2% processing fee), to be applied retroactively to the dates modification was sought.
{ } The father appeals, raising five assignments of error.
Standard of Review
{ } A trial court's decision regarding a child support obligation will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, 1997-Ohio-105, 686 N.E.2d 1108. An abuse of discretion is "more than an error of law, it connotes that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140. So long as the decision of the trial court is supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case, we will not disturb it. Masitto v. Masitto (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 63, 66, 488 N.E.2d 857.
{ } With these principles in mind, we proceed to address the father's assignments of error.
"Law of the Case" Doctrine
{ } Within all of the father's assignments of error, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to follow the "law of the case." Contrary to his argument, we find the trial court did not err because a reviewing court has not addressed the child support obligation.
{ } The doctrine of law of the case "provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels." Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 462 N.E.2d 410, citing Gohman v. St. Bernard (1924), 111 Ohio St. 726, 730, 146 N.E. 291. The underlying rationale of this doctrine is to maintain consistent results in a case by conclusively settling issues that have previously been litigated, to avoid endless litigation, "and to preserve the structure of superior and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution." City of Hubbard ex rel. Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402, 404, 1996-Ohio-174, 659 N.E.2d 781. See, also, Little Forest Med. Ct. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 76, 81, 631 N.E.2d 1068.
{ } In 2002, this court considered Pietrolungo v. Pietrolungo, Cuyahoga App. No. 80960, 2002-Ohio-458
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|