CLte as Delaware Cty Child Support Enforcement Agency v Kisex000f 2021 - PDF document

1 [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enf
[CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]Delaney, J.^¶1} AppeOOant DeOaZare Count\ CKLOd Support Enforcement AJenc\ appeaOs tKe November 2 2019 MudJment entr\ of tKe DeOaZare Count\ Court of Common POeas DomestLc ReOatLons DLvLsLon. FACTS AND PROCEDURA/ +,STORY^¶2} On -une 2 2003 AppeOOee -udLtK A. .Lse ³:Lfe´ and AppeOOee StepKen O. .Lse ³+usband´ Zere dLvorced b\ AJreed -udJment Entr\ Decree of DLvorce Ln tKe DeOaZare Count\ Court of Common POeas DomestLc ReOatLons DLvLsLon. TKe Decree ordered +usband to pa\ spousaO support Ln tKe amount of $1900.00 per montK dLrectO\ to :Lfe for 1 montKs effectLve Ma\ 1 2003. TKe trLaO court retaLned MurLsdLctLon to modLf\ tKe amount duratLon and pa\ment of spousaO support. ^¶3} B\ MudJment entr\ fLOed -anuar\ 5 200 tKe trLaO court ordered +usband to pa\ aOO future spousaO support pa\ments and arrearaJe OLquLdatLon pa\ments tKrouJK AppeOOant DeOaZare Count\ CKLOd Support Enforcement AJenc\ ³DCCSEA´. +usband¶s spousaO support arrearaJe Zas $29000 as of November 29 2006. TKe trLaO court ordered +usband to OLquLdate tKe arrearaJe at a rate of $1000 per montK. Upon receLpt of tKe trLaO court¶s order tKe DCCSEA Lnputted aOO part\ and order LnformatLon Lnto tKe Support Enforcement TracNLnJ S\stem ³SETS´. TKe DCCSEA coOOected and dLsbursed tKe spousaO support pa\ments maLntaLned records and cKarJed tKe statutor\ tZo percent processLnJ cKarJe. ^¶4} +usband and :Lfe contLnued to OLtLJate tKe Lssue of spousaO support. TKrouJK a MudJment entr\ fLOed December 31 200

2 tKe trLaO court determLned +usband¶s s
tKe trLaO court determLned +usband¶s spousaO support arrearaJe Zas $50543.9 as of December 1 200. +usband Zas [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]ordered to OLquLdate tKe arrearaJe at a rate of $30 per montK. TKe DCCSEA adMusted SETS to accurateO\ refOect tKe cKanJes made to tKe order. ^¶5} On November 9 2010 tKe trLaO court Lssued a MudJment entr\ fLndLnJ +usband Zas Ln contempt for faLOure to compO\ ZLtK tKe spousaO support order. +usband¶s spousaO support arrearaJe Zas $109439.0 pOus tKe tZo percent processLnJ fee. ^¶6} +usband and :Lfe entered Lnto an AJreed Order on -une 29 2011. +usband Zas ordered to pa\ spousaO support Ln tKe amount of $400 per montK and ordered to pa\ $200 per montK toZard tKe spousaO support arrearaJe tKrouJK tKe DCCSEA. Upon receLpt of tKe entr\ tKe DCCSEA adMusted tKe SETS to accurateO\ refOect tKe cKanJes made to tKe spousaO support order. ^¶} On -une  201 tKe trLaO court reactLvated tKe dLvorce proceedLnJ upon :Lfe¶s motLon to sKoZ cause reJardLnJ spousaO support. TKe DCCSEA Zas ordered to compOete and dLssemLnate to +usband and :Lfe¶s counseO an audLt of tKe spousaO support account. ^¶} On -anuar\ 31 201 tKe DCCSEA tooN admLnLstratLve actLon to termLnate tKe current spousaO support effectLve -anuar\ 31 201 because 1 montKs Kad Oapsed. On AprLO 19 201 tKe DCCSEA provLded a certLfLed audLt LncOudLnJ aOO spousaO support arrearaJes and admLnLstratLve processLnJ cKarJe arrearaJes. ^¶9} On Ma\ 3 2019 tKe DCCSEA receLved a subpoena to appear on -une 5 2019 for trLaO. After revLeZLnJ tKe

3 trLaO court docNet tKe DCCSEA dL
trLaO court docNet tKe DCCSEA dLscovered tKe trLaO date Kad been vacated and tKe trLaO court Kad ordered +usband and :Lfe to medLatLon. ^¶10} On -uO\ 1 2019 tKe trLaO court fLOed a -udJment Entr\ ,n Court SettOement. TKe MudJment entr\ stated tKe trLaO court KeOd an ad Koc FLnaO +earLnJ on Ma\ 23 2019 [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]reJardLnJ aOO outstandLnJ post-decree motLons. +usband and :Lfe partLcLpated Ln trLaO court medLatLon servLces and reacKed a fuOO aJreement on aOO outstandLnJ Lssues and motLons. +usband and :Lfe aJreed tKat b\ Ma\ 23 2019 +usband sKaOO pa\ :Lfe $13000 Ln fuOO satLsfactLon of aOO cOaLms and countercOaLms pertaLnLnJ to spousaO support ZKLcK tKe trLaO court noted ³Zas an arrears onO\ matter.´ -udJment Entr\ -uO\ 1 2019. ^¶11} TKe MudJment entr\ stated Ln pertLnent part to tKLs appea,T ,S +EREBY ORDERED tKat TKe /ump Sum Pa\ment tKat resoOves tKdLsputed arrearaJes Ls specLfLcaOO\ autKorL]ed b\ tKe Court and sKaOO be paLd dLrect from tKe POaLntLff to tKe Defendant contempOated as tKrouJK a tKLrd part\ on Ma\ 23 2019. CSEA sKaOO be dLrected to adMust Lts records accordLnJO\ effectLve tKe date of tKLs entr\ to refOect tKat an\ arrears or credLts on tKe above-referenced spousaO support account – LncOudLnJ tKose reJardLnJ tKe spousaO support account and tKe processLnJ fee be reduced to ]ero. SKouOd CSEA requLre an acNnoZOedJement from one or botK of tKe partLes tKe\ sKaOO cooperate KoZever tKe dLrectLve from tKe Court sKouOd be suffLcLent to effectuate tKe reductLon of tKe arrears to ]ero and cOose tKe account. -udJment Entr\ -uO\ 1 2019. ^¶12} On -uO\

4 22 2019 tKe DCCSEA fLOed
22 2019 tKe DCCSEA fLOed a motLon for reOLef from MudJment pursuant to CLv.R. 60B requestLnJ reOLef from tKe -uO\ 1 2019 MudJment entr\. ,t arJued tKe trLaO court erred ZKen Lt ordered tKe processLnJ cKarJes to ]ero and faLOed to provLde tKe DCCSEA ZLtK notLce of tKe proceedLnJs and tKe opportunLt\ to be Keard. ,n support [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]of Lts motLon tKe DCCSEA attacKed a certLfLed audLt of tKe spousaO support order tKat refOected +usband oZed $4142.01 Ln processLnJ cKarJe arrearaJes as of AprLO 30 2019. ^¶13} :LtKout a KearLnJ tKe trLaO court denLed tKe motLon for reOLef from MudJment on November 2 2019. ,t Ls from tKLs MudJment tKat tKe DCCSEA noZ appeaOs. ^¶14} NeLtKer +usband nor :Lfe fLOed an appeOOate brLef. ASS,*NMENTS OF ERROR^¶15} TKe DCCSEA raLses tZo AssLJnments of Errors ^¶16} ³,. T+E TR,A/ COURT ABUSED ,TS D,SCRET,ON :+EN ,T A//O:ED+USBAND AND :,FE TO :A,VE T+E ADM,N,STRAT,VE 2% PROCESS,N* C+AR*E O:ED TO T+E DE/A:ARE COUNTY C+,/D SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT A*ENCY. ^¶1} ³,,. T+E TR,A/ COURT ABUSED ,TS D,SCRET,ON :+EN ,T DEN,EDDCCSEA¶S MOT,ON FOR RE/,EF FROM -UD*MENT PURSUANT TO C,V,/ RU/E60B BECAUSE T+E DE/A:ARE COUNTY C+,/D SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT A*ENCY :AS NEVER PROV,DED NOT,CE T+E OPPORTUN,TY TO BE +EARD OR T+E OPPORTUN,TY TO OB-ECT TO T+E UNDER/Y,N* ORDER TO :A,VE PROCESS,N* C+AR*ES.´ ANA/YS,S,. and ,,.^¶1} :e consLder tKe tZo AssLJnments of Error raLsed b\ tKe DCCSEA toJetKer because tKe\ are LnterreOated. TKe DCCSEA contends tKe trLaO court abused Lts dLscretLon ZKen Lt ordered tKe DCCSEA to reduce +usband¶s processLnJ fee arrearaJe to ]ero and to den\ tKe DCCSEA¶s motLon for

5 reOLef from tKat MudJment. :e aJree. [
reOLef from tKat MudJment. :e aJree. [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]CLv.R. 60B^¶19} A motLon for reOLef from MudJment under CLv.R. 60B OLes Ln tKe trLaO court s sound dLscretLon. Griffey v. Rajan 33 OKLo St.3d 5 514 N.E.2d 1122 19. To fLnd an abuse of tKat dLscretLon Ze must determLne tKe trLaO court s decLsLon Zas unreasonabOe arbLtrar\ or unconscLonabOe and not mereO\ an error of OaZ or MudJment. Blakemore v. Blakemore 5 OKLo St.3d 21 450 N.E.2d 1140 193. TKe DCCSEA bases Lts motLon on 60B5. ,n GTE Automatic Electric Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. 4 OKLo St.2d 146 351 N.E.2d 113 196 paraJrapK tZo of tKe s\OOabus tKe Supreme Court of OKLo KeOd tKe foOOoZLnJ To prevaLO on a motLon brouJKt under CLv.R. 60B tKe movant must demonstrate tKat 1 tKe part\ Kas a merLtorLous defense or cOaLm to present Lf reOLef Ls Jranted 2 tKe part\ Ls entLtOed to reOLef under one of tKe Jrounds stated Ln CLv.R. 60B1 tKrouJK 5 and 3 tKe motLon Ls made ZLtKLn a reasonabOe tLme and ZKere tKe Jrounds of reOLef are CLv.R. 60B1 2 or 3 not more tKan one \ear after tKe MudJment order or proceedLnJ Zas entered or taNen. ^¶20} TKe DCCSEA arJued Lt Zas entLtOed to reOLef under CLv.R. 60B5. CLv.R. 60B5 aOOoZs tKe trLaO court to

6 reOLeve a part\ from a fLnaO MudJment f
reOLeve a part\ from a fLnaO MudJment for ³an\ otKer reason MustLf\LnJ reOLef from tKe MudJment.´ CLv.R. 60B5 operates as a catcK-aOO provLsLon and ³refOects µtKe LnKerent poZer of a court to reOLeve a person from tKe unMust operatLon of a MudJment.¶´ Maggiore v. Barensfeld 5tK DLst. StarN No. 2011CA0010 2012-OKLo-2909 2012 :/ 241514 ¶ 35 cLtLnJ Dutton v. Potroos 5tK DLst. StarN No. 2010CA0031 2011- OKLo-3646 2011 :/ 305612 at ¶ 49. ,t Ls reserved for ³e[traordLnar\ and unusuaO case [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.][s]´ Myers v. Myers 9tK DLst. SummLt No. 22393 2005-OKLo-300 2005 :/ 16360 at ¶ 14 and ³Ls not a substLtute for tKe enumerated Jrounds for reOLef from MudJment [.]´ ^¶21} ,n e[amLnLnJ tKe tKree GTE factors Ze fLrst fLnd tKat tKe DCCSEA¶s motLon for reOLef from MudJment Zas made Ln a reasonabOe tLme. ,t Zas fLOed fLve da\s after tKe trLaO court Lssued Lts MudJment entr\ ZaLvLnJ +usband¶s processLnJ fee arrearaJe. :e ne[t determLne ZKetKer tKe DCCSEA Kas a merLtorLous cOaLm or defense to present Lf reOLef Ls Jranted. TKe MerLtorLous COaLm and tKe ProcessLnJ Fee^¶22} TKe CKLOd Support Enforcement AJenc\ ³CSEA´ Zas ³estabOpursuant to R.C. 3125.03 so tKat Lt couOd enforce support orders oversee tKe coOOectLon of support obOLJatLons and perform otKer actLons assocLated ZLtK cKLOd support enforcement.´ Saari v. Lorain Cty. Child Support Enf't Agency 9tK DLst. /oraLn No. 10CA009905 2011-OKLo-219 2011 :/ 12102 ¶ . Under certaLn cLrcumstanc

7 es tKe CSEA must aOso coOOect sp
es tKe CSEA must aOso coOOect spousaO support. Id. cLtLnJ OKLo Adm.Code 510112–1–10. ^¶23} To perform Lts statutorLO\ mandated dutLes to enforce support orders and oversee tKe coOOectLon of support obOLJatLons tKe *eneraO AssembO\ autKorL]ed tKe CSEA to coOOect a processLnJ cKarJe. R.C. 3119.2A states A court tKat Lssues or modLfLes a court support order or an admLnLstratLve aJenc\ tKat Lssues or modLfLes an admLnLstratLve cKLOd support order sKaOO Lmpose on tKe obOLJor under tKe support order a processLnJ cKarJe Ln tKe amount of tZo per cent of tKe support pa\ment to be coOOected under a support order. No court or aJenc\ ma\ caOO tKe cKarJe a poundaJe fee. [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]R.C. 19.2 ne[t states A As used Ln tKLs sectLon ³current support pa\ment´ means tKe amount of support due an obOLJee tKat an obOLJor Ls requLred to pa\ Ln a partLcuOar pa\ment for tKe current montK as specLfLed Ln a support order. ³Current support pa\ment´ does not LncOude pa\ments on arrearaJes under support order. B TKe obOLJor sKaOO pa\ tKe amount Lmposed pursuant to sectLon 3119.2 of tKe RevLsed Code ZLtK ever\ current support pa\ment and ZLtK ever\ pa\ment on arrearaJes. ^¶24} TKe purpose of a processLnJ fee Ls to compensate offLcLaOs for tKe rLsN of KandOLnJ and dLsbursLnJ mone\. Tuscarawas Cty. Child Support Enf't Agency (CSEA) v. Burger 5tK DLst. TuscaraZas No. 2000AP11004 2001-OKLo-1440 2 cLtLnJ Granzow v. Bureau of Support 54 OKLo St.3d 35 3 560 N.E.2d 130 1990. TKe tZo percentprocessLnJ cKarJe Ls part of a unLform state practLc

8 e of support order enforcement mandated
e of support order enforcement mandated b\ federaO and state OaZ. R.C. 3125.0 codLfLes tKe dLrectLve to create tKe Support Enforcement TracNLnJ S\stem ³SETS´ used b\ aOO OKLo count\ cKLOd support enforcement aJencLes TKe department of Mob and famLO\ servLces sKaOO estabOLsK and maLntaLn a stateZLde automated data processLnJ s\stem Ln compOLance ZLtK TLtOe ,V-D of tKe ³SocLaO SecurLt\ Act´  Stat. 2351 195 42 U.S.C. 651 as amended to support tKe enforcement of cKLOd support tKat sKaOO be LmpOemented Ln ever\ count\. Ever\ count\ sKaOO accept tKe automated s\stem and Ln accordance ZLtK tKe ZrLtten LnstructLons of tKe department [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]for tKe LmpOementatLon of tKe automated s\stem sKaOO convert to tKe automated s\stem aOO records tKat are maLntaLned b\ an\ count\ entLt\ and tKat are reOated to an\ case for ZKLcK a OocaO aJenc\ Ls enforcLnJ a cKLOd support order Ln accordance ZLtK TLtOe ,V-D of tKe ³SocLaO SecurLt\ Act´  Stat. 2351 195 42 U.S.C. 651 as amended. ^¶25} TKe above-cLted OaZ demonstrates Lt Ls ZeOO-settOed tKat tKe tZo percent processLnJ fee coOOected b\ an CSEA Ls statutorLO\ mandated. TKe Lssue presented Ln tKLs case Ls ZKetKer tKe DCCSEA Kad a merLtorLous cOaLm or defense tKat tKe trLaO court couOd not order tKe DCCSEA to ZaLve a processLnJ fee arrearaJe accrued b\ +usband. :e e[amLne tZo cases tKat addressed tKe Lssue of ZKetKer a CSEA Zas entLtOed to coOOect an addLtLonaO tZo percent Ln processLnJ cKarJes on a processLnJ fee arrearaJe. TKese cases provLde JuLdance as to ZKetKer a trLaO court can order tKe DCCSEA to reduce +usban

9 d¶s processLnJ fee arrearaJe to ]ero. ^
d¶s processLnJ fee arrearaJe to ]ero. ^¶26} ,n Tuscarawas Cty. Child Support Enf't Agency (CSEA) v. Burger 5tK DLst. TuscaraZas No. 2000AP11004 2001-OKLo-1440 tKe CSEA fLOed contempt actLons aJaLnst muOtLpOe obOLJors under a cKLOd support order due to cKLOd support arrearaJes. TKe trLaO court ordered addLtLonaO montKO\ pa\ment toZard arrearaJes but uOtLmateO\ decOared Ln eacK case tKe CSEA couOd not coOOect processLnJ fees on an\ support arrearaJe pa\ments LncOudLnJ tKose attrLbutabOe to prLor unpaLd processLnJ fees. . at 1. TKe trLaO court used tKe foOOoZLnJ OanJuaJe Ln severaO of tKe cases TKus tKe Court fLnds tKat aOtKouJK tKe RevLsed Code JLves tKe court and admLnLstratLve aJenc\ autKorLt\ to account for past due processLnJ fees neLtKer tKe RevLsed Code nor tKe O.A.C. autKorL]es tKe coOOectLon of an [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]addLtLonaO processLnJ fee on tKe past due processLnJ fee. TKe Court fLnds tKat tKe OaZ does not aOOoZ for cumuOatLve processLnJ fees to be cKarJed upon past due support. TKe accumuOatLon of processLnJ fees couOd resuOt Ln an unconscLonabOe e[ponentLaO obOLJatLon for ZKLcK tKere Ls no cOear OeJLsOatLve Lntent and ZKLcK tKLs court ZLOO not endorse. . at 1. ^¶2} On appeaO tKLs Court e[amLned tKe meanLnJ of R.C. 2301.35 ZKLcK Zas tKe predecessor statute to R.C. 3119.2 and R.C. 3119.2. ,n S.B. 10 2000 OKLo /aZs 291 tKe *eneraO AssembO\ repeaOed R.C. 2301.35 and enacted R.C. 3119.2 and R.C. 3119.2. TKe reOevant content of R.C. 2301.35 Zas spOLt betZeen tKe tZo statutes but tKe OanJuaJe remaLned tKe same and tKe reOevant OanJuaJe Kas essentLaOO\ been uncKanJed sLnce Z

10 e e[amLned Lt Ln Burger. R.C. 2301.35&#x
e e[amLned Lt Ln Burger. R.C. 2301.35*1 stated *1 A court or admLnLstratLve aJenc\ tKat Lssues or modLfLes a support order sKaOO Lmpose a processLnJ cKarJe tKat Ls tKe Jreater of tZo per cent of tKe support pa\ment to be coOOected under a support order or one doOOar per montK on tKe obOLJor under tKe support order. TKe obOLJor sKaOO pa\ tKe amount ZLtK ever\ current support pa\ment and ZLtK ever\ pa\ment on arrearaJes. No court or aJenc\ ma\ caOO tKe cKarJe a poundaJe fee. ^¶2} Upon our appeOOate revLeZ of tKe statutor\ OanJuaJe tKe maMorLt\ Ln Burger found tKe trLaO court erred ZKen Lt dLsaOOoZed tKe coOOectLon of statutor\ processLnJ cKarJes on montKO\ arrearaJe pa\ments. . at 3. :e fLrst dLsaJreed ZLtK tKe trLaO court¶s statutor\ LnterpretatLon of R.C. 2310.35*1 [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]FoOOoZLnJ Lts revLeZ of varLous provLsLons Ln tKe OKLo RevLsed Code and OKLo AdmLnLstratLve Code tKe trLaO court found tKat Lt couOd not Oocate a defLnLtLon of ³arrearaJes´ as used Ln 2301.35*1. +oZever tKe court concOuded tKat ³[t]Ke obOLJor must pa\ tKe processLnJ cKarJe on tKe support ZKetKer tKe support Ls paLd on tLme current or paLd Oate past- due´ but tKat no autKorLt\ e[Lsts for assessLnJ a ³second´ processLnJ fee on tKe support amount Lf paLd past-due. Courts are JuLded b\ tKe a[Lom tKat statutes sKouOd be construed to avoLd unreasonabOe consequences. See State ex rel. Dispatch Printing v. Wells 195 1 OKLo St.3d 32 34. TKe trLaO court s readLnJ of R.C. 23

11 01.35*1
01.35*1 effectLveO\ aOtered tKe second sentence from conMunctLve to dLsMunctLve L.e. tKe pKrase ³and ZLtK ever\ pa\ment on arrearaJes´ Zas essentLaOO\ construed as ³or ZLtK ever\ pa\ment on arrearaJes´ Lf not prevLousO\ paLd ZLtK current support. *eneraOO\ ³ Ze must presume tKe OeJLsOature means ZKat Lt sa\s Ze cannot amend statutes to provLde ZKat Ze consLder a more OoJLcaO resuOt.´ State v. Virasayachack 2000 13 OKLo App.3d 50 54. AddLtLonaOO\ tKe trLaO court effectLveO\ read ³tZo per cent of tKe support pa\ment´ Ln tKe fLrst sentence of R.C. 2301.35*1 as referrLnJ to a current support order onO\. ,n construLnJ a statute a court ma\ not add or deOete Zords. State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Indus. Comm. 1990 52 OKLo St.3d 144 14 State v. Hughes 1999 6 OKLo St.3d 424 42. As CSEA poLnts out tKe aforementLoned second sentence of R.C. 2301.35*1 Zas orLJLnaOO\ added to tKe statute vLa amendment on MarcK 29 19. AOtKouJK tKe [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]second sentence Kas from Lts onset contaLned tKe pKrase ³current support´ tKe *eneraO AssembO\ never cKose to amend ³support pa\ment´ or ³support order´ from tKe fLrst sentence Ln OLNe fasKLon. ,ndeed at Oeast one appeOOate court Kas KeOd tKat a ³cKLOd support order´ LncOudes an order requLrLnJ perLodLc pa\ments for past-due support. See Treadway v. Ballew Oct.  199

12 ; SummLt App.No. 194�
; SummLt App.No. 194 unreported. . at 2 ^¶29} ,n LnterpretLnJ R.C. 2301.35*1 Ze ne[t e[amLned R.C. 5101.325B1. TKe content of R.C. 5101.325B1 Ls noZ codLfLed Ln R.C. 3121.56 and R.C. 3121.5 ZLtK no reOevant cKanJe Ln ZordLnJ. FurtKermore at tKe tLme of tKe cases sub MudLce tKe OKLo Department of -ob and FamLO\ ServLces ³OD-FS´ Zas statutorLO\ cKarJed Ln R.C. 5101.325B1 ZLtK maLntaLnLnJ an account of unpaLd processLnJ fees for ever\ cKLOd support obOLJor B1 TKe dLvLsLon [of cKLOd support Ln tKe department of Mob and famLO\ servLces] sKaOO coOOect tKe cKarJe Lmposed on tKe obOLJor under tKe support order pursuant to dLvLsLon *1 of sectLon 2301.35 of tKe RevLsed Code. ,f an obOLJor faLOs to pa\ tKe requLred amount ZLtK eacK current support pa\ment due Ln Lncrements specLfLed under tKe support order tKe dLvLsLon sKaOO maLntaLn a separate arrearaJe account of tKat amount for tKat obOLJor. . . at 2. ^¶30} TKe maMorLt\ Ln Burger concOuded tKat Ln ³[r]eadLnJ R.C. 5101.325B1 and R.C. 2301.35*1 Ln parL materLa Ze cannot accept tKe trLaO court s restrLctLve [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]LnterpretatLon of tKe coOOectLon of processLnJ fees. An obligor who fails to pay current support remains statutorily liable for the corresponding accumulation of unpaid processing fees on said support; otherwise, the mandate of R.C. 5101.325(B)(1) is superfluous. :Ken tKe obOLJor Oater maNes an arrearaJe pa\ment

13  Ze fLnd no basLs to bar CSEA fr
 Ze fLnd no basLs to bar CSEA from assessLnJ tKereon a separate processLnJ fee under R.C. 2301.35*1. Moreover ZKen LnterpretLnJ statutes courts µ must JLve due deference to an admLnLstratLve LnterpretatLon formuOated b\ an aJenc\ tKat Kas accumuOated substantLaO e[pertLse and to ZKLcK tKe *eneraO AssembO\ Kas deOeJated tKe responsLbLOLt\ of LmpOementLnJ tKe OeJLsOatLve command.¶ Swallow v. Indus. Comm. 19 36 OKLo St.3d 55 5.´ . at 2 empKasLs added. ^¶31} TKe Second DLstrLct Court of AppeaOs Zas faced ZLtK tKe same questLon Ln Osborne v. Osborne 2nd DLst. MontJomer\ No. 26624 2015-OKLo-332 ZKere tKe trLaO court stated tKe CSEA Zas not entLtOed to coOOect an addLtLonaO tZo percent Ln processLnJ cKarJes on a processLnJ fee arrearaJe of $301.91 oZed to tKe CSEA. TKe court reOLed upon our decLsLon Ln Burger, supra to fLnd tKe trLaO court erred Ln refusLnJ to aOOoZ tKe CSEA coOOect tKe addLtLonaO tZo percent processLnJ cKarJe on tKe processLnJ fee arrearaJe. . at ¶ 2. ^¶32} TKe DCCSEA arJues tKe trLaO court Zas ZLtKout tKe autKorLt\ to order tKe DCCSEA to ZaLve tKe processLnJ fee arrearaJe oZed b\ +usband based on our LnstructLve anaO\sLs Ln Burger Ze aJree. TKe statutorLO\ mandated purpose of tKe CSEA Ls to enforce support orders oversee tKe coOOectLon of support obOLJatLons and perform otKer actLons assocLated ZLtK cKLOd support enforcement. A tZo percent processLnJ fee Kas been KeOd to be reasonabOe to compensate tKe CSEA for tKe assumptLon of tKe rLsN [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]ZLtK tKe KandOLnJ and dLsbursement of funds Ln proportLon to tKe am

14 ount of tKose funds. Curran v. Kelly�
ount of tKose funds. Curran v. Kelly 9tK DLst. MedLna No. 10CA0139-M 2012-OKLo-21 ¶ 13 cLtLnJ Granzow54 OKLo St.3d at 3. TKe KLstor\ of tKLs case sKoZs tKat tKe DCCSEA Kas been enforcLnJ tKe partLes¶ support order overseeLnJ tKe coOOectLon of +usband¶s support obOLJatLons and performLnJ otKer actLons assocLated ZLtK support enforcement sLnce 200. ^¶33} :e found Ln Burger ZKLcK Zas foOOoZed Ln Osborne tKat OKLo OaZ permLtted tKe CSEA to coOOect an addLtLonaO tZo percent processLnJ cKarJe on a processLnJ fee arrearaJe and tKe trLaO court couOd not order tKe CSEA to ZaLve tKe coOOectLon of tKe cKarJe. Based on tKe same statutor\ provLsLons Ze OLNeZLse fLnd tKe OanJuaJe of R.C. 3119.2 R.C. 3119.2B and R.C. 3121.5 OLmLts tKe trLaO court¶s abLOLt\ to order tKe DCCSEA to reduce a processLnJ fee arrearaJe to a ]ero baOance. :KLOe +usband and :Lfe ma\ Kave reacKed an aJreement as to +usband¶s spousaO support obOLJatLon tKe DCCSEA Kas a merLtorLous cOaLm or defense tKat Lt Zas entLtOed to tKe processLnJ fees under OKLo OaZ reJardOess of tKeLr aJreement. ^¶34} TKe fLrst AssLJnment of Error of tKe DCCSEA Ls sustaLned.CLv.R. 60B5^¶35} TKe tKLrd GTE factor Ls ZKetKer tKe DCCSEA Ls entLtOed to reOLef under one of tKe enumerated factors. TKe DCCSEA arJues Lt Ls entLtOed to reOLef under CLv.R. 60B5 ZKLcK aOOoZs tKe trLaO court to reOLeve a part\ from a fLnaO MudJment for ³an\ otKer reason MustLf\LnJ reOLef from tKe MudJment.´ CLv.R. 60B5 operates as a catcK-aOO provLsLon and ³refOects µtKe LnKerent poZer of a court to reOLeve a person from tKe unMust operatLon o

15 f a MudJment.¶´ Maggiore v. Barensfeld
f a MudJment.¶´ Maggiore v. Barensfeld 5tK DLst. StarN No. 2011CA0010 2012-OKLo-2909 2012 :/ 241514 ¶ 35 cLtLnJ Dutton v. Potroos 5tK DLst. StarN No. [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]2010CA0031 2011-OKLo-3646 2011 :/ 305612 at ¶ 49. ,t Ls reserved for ³e[traordLnar\ and unusuaO case [s]´ Myers v. Myers 9tK DLst. SummLt No. 22393 2005- OKLo-300 2005 :/ 16360 at ¶ 14 and ³Ls not a substLtute for tKe enumerated Jrounds for reOLef from MudJment [.]´ ^¶36} TKe DCCSEA arJues Lt sKouOd be entLtOed to reOLef from MudJment because Lt Zas never provLded tKe opportunLt\ to be Keard on tKe Lssue of ZaLvLnJ +usband¶s processLnJ cKarJe arrearaJes oZed to tKe DCCSEA. ,n Saari v. Lorain Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency 9tK DLst. /oraLn No. 10CA009905 2011-OKLo-219 tKe appeOOatcourt reversed tKe trLaO court¶s determLnatLon tKat a provLsLon Ln a prenuptLaO aJreement ZaLvLnJ spousaO support Zas LnvaOLd. :KLOe tKe appeaO Zas pendLnJ tKe trLaO court ordered tKe Kusband to pa\ spousaO support to tKe ZLfe pOus a tZo percent processLnJ fee to tKe CSEA for coOOectLon and dLstrLbutLon of tKe spousaO support. . at ¶ 2. After reversaO and remand tKe trLaO court ordered tKe CSEA to reLmburse tKe Kusband $1030.23 Ln processLnJ fees tKat Kad been coOOected for dLstrLbutLon of spousaO support. TKe CSEA fLOed a motLon to Lntervene and motLon to vacate/reOLef from MudJment. . at ¶ 4. TKe trLaO court denLed tKe motLon to Lntervene. ^¶3} On appeaO tKe CSEA arJued Lt Zas deprLved of due process of OaZ because Lt Zas not a part\ to tKe OLtLJatL

16 on and Lt Zas never provLded not
on and Lt Zas never provLded notLce or an opportunLt\ to be Keard on tKe Lssue of ZKetKer Lt sKouOd be requLred to reLmburse fees. . at ¶ 10. TKe NLntK DLstrLct Court of AppeaOs based on our decLsLon Ln Messer v. Messer 5tK DLst. /LcNLnJ No. 2005CA0012 2006-OKLo-433 aJreed and found tKat tKe concepts of fundamentaO faLrness and due process demanded tKat tKe CSEA sKouOd Kave receLved notLce and an opportunLt\ to be Keard. . at ¶ 11. [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]^¶3} Based on Saari Ze fLnd tKat tKe DCCSEA Zas deprLved of tKe due process of OaZ ZKen tKe trLaO court faLOed to provLde Lt ZLtK notLce of tKe ad Koc FLnaO +earLnJ on Ma\ 23 2019 ZKere tKe DCCSEA couOd Kave been Keard on tKe Lssue of ZaLvLnJ +usband¶s processLnJ fee arrearaJe. :e reverse tKe trLaO court¶s denLaO of tKe DCCSEA¶s motLon for reOLef from MudJment Ln accordance ZLtK tKe LnKerent poZer of a court to reOLeve a person from tKe unMust operatLon of a MudJment. See CLv.R. 60B5. ^¶39} TKe second AssLJnment of Error of tKe DCCSEA Ls sustaLnedCONC/US,ON^¶40} Based on tKe foreJoLnJ Ze reverse tKe November 2 2019 MudJment of tKe DeOaZare Count\ Court of Common POeas DomestLc ReOatLons DLvLsLon and remand tKLs matter to tKe trLaO court for furtKer proceedLnJs consLstent ZLtK tKLs opLnLon and OaZ. B\ DeOane\ -. BaOdZLn P.-. and :Lse EarOe -. concur. [CLte as Delaware Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Kise 2021-OKLo-915.]COURT OF APPEA/S DE/A:ARE COUNTY O+,O 1231 E. Broad St. DeOaZare O+ 43015 CoOumbus O+ 43205 For Defendant-AppeOOee CA/EB CARSON ,,