Adams v. Adams
2012 Ohio 5131
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Marissa and Jason Adams married in 2003 and have one child; prior to marriage the child existed from 2001.
- An agreed 2005 divorce decree incorporated a shared parenting plan and deviated child support to zero dollars.
- In 2010 Marissa sought to terminate the shared parenting plan and begin child support payments from Jason.
- Throughout 2011 the court and a court-appointed GAL addressed income for support calculations, discovery, and objections.
- On Oct. 19, 2011 the magistrate set incomes and a deviated child support amount (approximately $696.38/month) and found a 10% deviation from the prior order; the court later denied objections; this order was appealed.
- The appellate court reverses, holding that Bonner v. Bonner applies and requires additional findings under R.C. 3119.79(C); case is remanded for proper determinations before any modification of support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modification depended on a 10% deviation alone | Marissa contends the deviation justifies modification | Jason contends the deviation alone is insufficient where deviation was by agreement | Remanded for further findings under 3119.79(C) (Bonner applied) |
| Whether the court properly designated the obligor and made required findings | Not explicitly stated in opinion; issues moot after reversal | Not explicitly stated in opinion; issues moot after reversal | moot due to remand on the primary issue |
| Whether the court properly calculated income for support | Income calculations were appropriate given evidence | Income calculations were flawed (lack of candor, unreliable records) | moot due to remand on the primary issue |
| Whether the court properly awarded attorney’s fees and costs | Fees/costs should follow proper change-in-circumstances analysis | Awards improper absent substantial change findings | moot due to remand on the primary issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonner v. Bonner, 2005-Ohio-6173 (3d Dist. (2005)) (read with 3119.79(A) and (C); deviation contemplated at time of order precludes modification unless not contemplated later)
- Steggeman v. Steggeman, 2007-Ohio-5482 (3d Dist. (2007)) (post-order changes; Bonner applies when deviation is by agreement)
- Adams v. Sirmans, 2008-Ohio-5400 (3d Dist. (2008)) (Bonner framework applied to out-of-state agreements continuing later)