Austell v. Bowie
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Austell v. Bowie, 2016-Ohio-1043.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO MAYA AUSTELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BRANDON BOWIE, Defendant-Appellant. : APPEAL NO. C-150437 TRIAL NO. P09-2258X : : O P I N I O N. : : Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 16, 2016 Maya Austell, pro se, Brandon Bowie, pro se. Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS CUNNINGHAM, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Brandon Bowie challenges the juvenile court’s overruling of his objection to and its adoption of a March 16, 2015 magistrate’s decision modifying his child-support obligation and imposing a minimum support order under R.C. 3119.06. {¶2} In a single assignment of error, Bowie argues that the juvenile court erred in imputing income to him, and in enforcing a child-support order against a physically disabled obligor who receives means-tested benefits. See R.C. 3121.03. {¶3} While a trial court’s decision regarding a child-support obligation is generally governed by an abuse-of-discretion standard, the “court’s discretion is not unfettered.” Sapinsley v. Sapinsley, 171 Ohio App.3d 74, 2007-Ohio-1320, 869 N.E.2d 702, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when required by statute, a trial court must complete a child-support-computation worksheet and include it in the record. This requirement is mandatory and must be literally and technically followed. See Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139, 601 N.E.2d 496 (1992), paragraphs one and two of the syllabus (applying former R.C. 3113.215); see also Beckworth v. Westendorf, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-020804, 2003-Ohio-5955, ¶ 10 (holding that the Supreme Court’s statements regarding R.C. 3113.215 are applicable to the current statutory child-support scheme). The requirement is imposed to assure that appellate courts are able give meaningful review to a trial court’s decision. See Marker at 142. {¶4} R.C. 3119.02, which includes language identical to that of former R.C. 3113.215, explicitly provides that the trial court must complete a child-support worksheet for any entry which orders or modifies child support. See R.C. 3119.79. {¶5} Here, as counsel for the Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement Agency noted in argument before the juvenile court, neither the magistrate nor the court had completed a child-support worksheet. Our review of 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS the record confirms that the juvenile court did not enter a completed worksheet on its journal before modifying Bowie’s child-support obligation. {¶6} Therefore, we hold that the juvenile court erred in failing to complete a worksheet. The assignment of error is sustained, albeit for reasons unrelated to Bowie’s argument. {¶7} Consequently, the juvenile court’s June 16, 2015 judgment entry is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings on the appropriate amount of Bowie’s child-support obligation. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. MOCK and STAUTBERG, JJ., concur. Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
