[Cite as Guyon v. Guyon,
2024-Ohio-4731.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
MITCHELL E. GUYON, :
Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2024-02-023
: OPINION
- vs - 9/30/2024
:
CECILIA MORK GUYON, :
Appellee. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. DR20090623
The Lampe Law Office, LLC, and Vicki L. Richmond, for appellant.
Cecilia Mork, pro se.
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mitchell Guyon ("Father"), appeals a decision of the Butler
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.1 Cecilia Mork ("Mother")
and Father are the parents of four children.
1. Pursuant to Loc.R. 6(A). the court hereby sua sponte removes this case from the accelerated calendar
for purposes of issuing this opinion.
Butler CA2024-02-023
{¶ 2} The procedural posture is important to understand for purposes of this
appeal. The parties divorced in June 2021. At the time of their divorce, the parties
entered into a shared parenting plan. The shared parenting plan provided that each
parent would be deemed the "residential parent, legal custodian, and custodial parent" of
the children, but that Mother would be designated the "residential parent for school
purposes" while Father would be designated the "non-school parent."
Father's September 28, 2022 Motion
{¶ 3} On September 28, 2022, Father filed a motion seeking to terminate the
shared parenting plan. The matter proceeded to a hearing before a magistrate. On
February 7, 2023, the magistrate issued a written decision stating that shared parenting
was not in the children's best interest and terminated the shared parenting plan. The
magistrate's decision states, in pertinent part:
Based upon the foregoing facts, it is found that Shared
Parenting is not in the Children's best interest. Therefore,
Father's Motion to Terminate Shared Parenting and Motion to
Designate Custodian are GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED THAT the parties' Shared Parenting Plan is
TERMINATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Father is designated
Custodian of the Children.
Father's July 12, 2023 Emergency Motion
{¶ 4} Mother filed an objection, which stayed the magistrate's decision. However,
on July 12, 2023, Father filed a motion for an emergency hearing on parenting time, along
with another motion to designate him as the children's custodian ("second motion for
custody"). Following a hearing, the magistrate issued a decision resolving Father's
emergency motion on parenting time and set a date for a status conference on Father's
second motion for custody. The magistrate indicated that it would not resolve the second
-2-
Butler CA2024-02-023
motion for custody until the trial court ruled on Mother's objection.
Trial Court's October 16, 2023 Ruling on Mother's Objection
{¶ 5} On October 16, 2023, the trial court ruled on Mother's objection and issued
a final appealable order ("October order"). The October order is imprecisely worded,
leading to the instant dispute.
{¶ 6} In its October order, the trial court determined that the magistrate "did not
make findings sufficient to terminate the parties' shared parenting plan" and that the
magistrate "made findings that actually support retention of the shared parenting plan."
The October order states:
The record reflects that both parents have considerable
mental health issues that may negatively affect the children.
This has been a concern of the court since the parties' initial
divorce.
...
The Magistrate appeared to consider the parties' financial
disparities. Regardless, the best interest factors support the
designation of [Father] as residential parent. The court adopts
the best interest findings of the Magistrate.
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate's
Decision, the court finds it is in the children's best interest for
[Father] to make medical decisions for the children.
Although the trial court stated it was "adopting" the magistrate's best interest findings, it
did not state that it was "terminating" the shared parenting plan. The October order states
that the trial court was modifying Father's "designation."
This court AFFIRMS the Magistrate's designation of [Father]
as residential parent and MODIFIES his designation. [Father]
shall be designated residential parent for school purposes.
Neither Mother nor Father appealed the October order.
Status Conference on Father's Second Motion for Custody
{¶ 7} On October 27, 2023, the parties appeared before the magistrate for a
-3-
Butler CA2024-02-023
status conference on Father's second motion for custody. The magistrate stated that it
was confused by the wording of the October order. The magistrate was unsure if the trial
court had terminated the shared parenting plan and acknowledged that the trial court's
decision could be read "either way." The magistrate ultimately decided that it would
proceed based on its reading, which was that the shared parenting plan was terminated,
and that Father was the children's custodian. The magistrate dismissed Father's second
motion for custody based on mootness. The magistrate reasoned the "judge can correct
me if I'm wrong."
{¶ 8} Mother filed an objection, asserting that the magistrate's decision was
contrary to the October order. On January 17, 2024, the trial court entered a final
appealable order ("clarifying order") stating it had not terminated the shared parenting
plan but had merely modified a term of the shared parenting plan to designate Father as
the residential parent for school purposes.
This judge affirmed the Magistrate's Decision but modified
[Father's] designation. The Magistrate recommended
designation of [Father] as residential parent and legal
custodian. This court modified that finding, and determined
that it was in the children's best interest for [Father] to be
designated "residential parent for school purposes." The
court also determined that [Father] would make medical
decisions for the children.
While the court failed to specifically overrule the Magistrate's
termination of the shared parenting plan, the text of the
Decision and the court's intent is to leave shared parenting
between these parents intact. The court specifically finds that
the shared parenting plan shall remain in place.
Father now appeals, raising a single assignment of error for review.
Appeal
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DETERMINING
IN THE ALL PURPOSE ENTRY FILED JANUARY 17, 2024 THAT FATHER WAS NOT
-4-
Butler CA2024-02-023
THE RESIDENTIAL PARENT OF THE CHILDREN AND THAT THE PARTIES HAD
SHARED PARENETING [sic] OF THE MINOR CHILDREN.
{¶ 10} In his sole assignment of error, Father argues the clarifying order improperly
modified the October order. Father maintains that the trial court clearly terminated the
shared parenting plan in the October order and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
enter the clarifying order and that he was deprived of due process of law.
{¶ 11} Upon review of the record, we find the trial court did not err by entering the
clarifying order, as there is an inherent authority to clarify a judgment entry where
confusion exists as to its meaning. Robinette v. Bryant, 2013-Ohio-5887, ¶ 6 (4th Dist.);
Rubin v. Rubin,
2006-Ohio-2383, ¶ 23-25 (11th Dist.); Long v. Long,
1999 Ohio App.
LEXIS 2032 (5th Dist. May 5, 1999). See also In re S.C.T.,
2005-Ohio-2498, ¶ 7 (12th
Dist.) (courts possess the inherent authority to correct errors in judgment entries so that
the record speaks the truth).
{¶ 12} The simple fact is that the October 16, 2023, order is confusing. The trial
court stated that the magistrate "did not make findings sufficient to terminate the parties
shared parenting plan." However, the trial court then observed that the magistrate "made
findings that actually support retention of the shared parenting plan" and stated that it was
"adopting" the magistrate's best interest findings.2 Yet, nowhere does the trial court state
that it was terminating the shared parenting plan. The trial court stated that it was
modifying Father's "designation." In short, there was rightful confusion below as to
whether the trial court had terminated the shared parenting plan or merely made a
modification.
2. This is where the main source of confusion seems to lie. The magistrate's best interest findings were
that the shared parenting plan should terminate. However, the trial court had just stated that the
magistrate's findings "actually support retention of the shared parenting plan."
-5-
Butler CA2024-02-023
{¶ 13} Neither party chose to appeal from the obviously flawed order. App.R. 4(A).
The October order was issued on October 16, 2023, and the parties appeared before the
magistrate just 11 days later where the confusion was evident. Mother and Father both
had different interpretations of the trial court's October order. The magistrate
acknowledged that it could be read "either way" and the "judge can correct me if I'm
wrong." Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not "modify" the previous
order as Father argues. Instead, we find the trial court clarified its poorly worded order.
Having found no merit to Father's arguments, his sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 14} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-6-
