2022 Ohio 403
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Deborah Ayers filed for divorce on July 8, 2019; the parties married in 2006 and have three minor children. Temporary orders named Deborah the residential parent.
- David Ayers moved for shared parenting (Oct. 28, 2019); Deborah filed a competing parenting-plan motion. Final hearing occurred over three days in Aug–Oct 2020.
- Trial court denied David’s shared-parenting motion, named Deborah residential parent, adopted a 23-part parenting plan, and entered final divorce on Jan. 22, 2021.
- Trial court imputed income to David ($112,613.33) for child-support purposes and ordered total child support of $1,390.71/month for three children; David contested imputation and sought a deviation.
- Trial court treated the Kellogg Road home as marital property (valued using the Wood County Auditor at $265,900), divided equity equally, and awarded Deborah one-half of a 2019 CSX bonus (treated as one-half of the gross amount).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deborah) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of shared parenting | The proposed shared plan was not in the children’s best interests; trial court properly applied R.C. 3109.04(F) factors | Motion complied with R.C. 3109.04(G); trial court failed to expressly determine plan was not in children’s best interests and some findings were against the weight of the evidence | Trial court performed the required best‑interests analysis (considered all R.C. 3109.04(F) factors); denial affirmed (no abuse of discretion). |
| 2) Imputation of income and deviation | Imputing income was proper because David had ability and experience to earn; deviation factors were considered and did not support a deviation to zero | David was involuntarily unemployed and should not have potential income imputed; requested temporary deviation to zero and credit for in‑kind payments | Court did not find David involuntarily unemployed for purposes of potential income; imputed income upheld and deviation denied (some competent, credible evidence supports decision). |
| 3) Valuation of Kellogg Road property | Auditor valuation and mortgage figures provided competent evidence; trial court may reject unsupported contrary claims | Auditor undervalued the house (ignored >$90,000 improvements); trial court should have ordered a new appraisal | Trial court permissibly relied on Wood County Auditor valuation and record evidence; equal division of net equity affirmed. |
| 4) Division of 2019 work bonus (gross vs net) | Bonus is marital; one‑half of the gross amount was deposited into joint accounts and is marital property; tax consequences addressed by filing instruction | Award should be one‑half of net (after taxes); awarding half of gross makes David bear full tax burden | Trial court awarded one‑half of the gross bonus as marital property and ordered joint tax filing for 2020; division affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 876 N.E.2d 546 (2007) (allocation of parental rights is a custody determination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Miller v. Miller, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard in domestic relations matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Rock v. Cabral, 616 N.E.2d 218 (1993) (standards for imputing potential income for child‑support calculations)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997) (trial court must consider all relevant factors and reach custody decision in children’s best interests)
- Huelskamp v. Huelskamp, 925 N.E.2d 167 (2009) (trial court has broad discretion in valuing marital real estate)
- Morrow v. Becker, 3 N.E.3d 144 (2013) (child support reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Torres Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, 161 N.E.3d 546 (2020) (trial court must consider R.C. 3109.04(F) factors in best‑interests analysis)