Abrams v. Abrams
2017 Ohio 4319
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rodney and Lavonne Abrams divorced in 2004; decree ordered Rodney to pay $666/month child support and required Rodney to quitclaim the marital home to Lavonne within 7 days and required Lavonne to refinance the home in her name within one year or list it for sale.
- Rodney did not quitclaim the property until November 4, 2015 (≈11 years after the divorce); Lavonne has lived in the home with their daughter (a "Castle" child) since the divorce.
- Rodney filed (March 2016) a motion to modify child support after their daughter began receiving Social Security disability benefits ($488.67/month) and a motion to show cause (May 2016) seeking contempt for Lavonne’s failure to refinance.
- At a June 2016 hearing, evidence included tax returns, a quitclaim deed, lender correspondence (Evolve), a foreclosure-assistance application (Housing Source), pay stubs, and the mortgage promissory note. Rodney objected to some exhibits as hearsay.
- The magistrate denied both motions; the trial court reviewed objections, sustained in part (ordered immediate listing for sale because refinance not done) and otherwise affirmed: no contempt (Lavonne established inability to comply) and no child-support modification (less than 10% deviation; daughter’s SSI not a basis for deviation under Paton).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lavonne) | Defendant's Argument (Rodney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lavonne should be held in contempt for failing to refinance within one year | She lacked ability to refinance until Rodney quitclaimed and made attempts to refinance and seek assistance; exhibits corroborate efforts | She violated the decree and should be in contempt; exhibits proving her efforts were inadmissible hearsay | Court: No contempt as Lavonne proved inability to comply (Rodney’s delayed quitclaim hindered refinancing); but decree requires sale since refinancing not completed, so order sale immediately |
| Whether child support should be modified based on daughter’s Social Security disability benefits and updated incomes | No substantial change; recent 401(k) withdrawal was a one-time event; overtime and rental income were minimal or irregular | Child’s SSD should reduce support (deviation); trial used incorrect gross income (omitted overtime, 401(k) withdrawal, rental income) | Court: No modification. Recalculation showed <10% deviation. Paton controls: child’s SSI/SSD is not a financial resource warranting deviation; magistrate’s income calculation (excluding one‑time 401(k), minimal overtime, and no imputable rental income) was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Paton v. Paton, 91 Ohio St.3d 94, 742 N.E.2d 619 (Ohio 2001) (SSI/SSD received by a disabled child do not justify a deviation from the basic child support schedule)
- Williams v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 441, 727 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 2000) (Social Security benefits to a disabled parent may be treated as income of that parent for credit against support obligations)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 553 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1990) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)
- Castle v. Castle, 15 Ohio St.3d 279, 473 N.E.2d 803 (Ohio 1984) (definition and treatment of a "Castle child" — disabilities extending parental support duty)