[Cite as Sassya v. Morgan, 2018-Ohio-3445.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO LEBY SASSYA, : OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2015-T-0026 - vs - : CAROL LYNNE MORGAN : (f.k.a. SASSYA), Defendant-Appellant. : Civil Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 2011 DS 00293. Judgment: Affirmed. Elise M. Burkey, Burkey, Burkey & Scher Co., L.P.A., 200 Chestnut Avenue, N.E., Warren, OH 44483 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Michael A. Partlow, 112 South Water Street, Suite C, Kent, OH 44240 (For Defendant- Appellant). COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. {¶1} Appellant, Carol Lynne Morgan, f.k.a. Sassya (“Wife”), appeals from the February 13, 2015 judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, overruling her objections to a magistrate’s decision. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. {¶2} By way of background, on December 18, 1994, Wife and appellee, Leby Sassya (“Husband”), were married in Kuwait. From 1995 to 2009, five children were born as issue of the marriage. Husband was employed at First Energy and earned a base annual salary of $60,000. Wife was not employed and earned $0. {¶3} On August 30, 2011, the parties filed a petition for dissolution with an attached separation agreement. The separation agreement contained terms covering all matters relating to the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, including various aspects of the division of the parties’ property and debt, spousal support (both parties waived spousal support), child support (Husband agreed to pay $1,800 per month), and the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. In regard to the allocation of parental rights, the separation agreement stated that the parties agreed to share the rights and responsibilities of their children. Attached to the separation agreement was the Trumbull County Standard Companionship Rules. {¶4} Following a hearing, the trial court filed a dissolution decree on October 3, 2011 granting the parties a dissolution on the grounds of incompatibility. The dissolution decree correctly set forth all the terms of the separation agreement pertaining to the parties’ agreed upon property division as well as spousal and child support issues. However, the dissolution decree did not correctly set forth the parties’ agreement relating to the allocation of parental rights. Rather, the dissolution decree provided that Wife shall be the custodial residential parent for all five children. {¶5} Due to the inconsistency between the separation agreement and the dissolution decree, Husband filed a motion on January 30, 2012 to modify the dissolution decree to conform to the separation agreement and to modify the parenting order and child support payments. In support of his motion, Husband indicated that he has been the residential parent for the two eldest children on a continuous and uninterrupted basis. Three months later, Husband filed an amended motion requesting 2 that the court vacate the dissolution decree because it failed to incorporate the terms of the separation agreement regarding the parenting of the minor children. {¶6} A hearing was held before a magistrate on May 2, 2012. Pursuant to his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals