Brown v. Brown, 2017 Ohio 8175

Dona M. Brown and Anthony E. Brown married in 1998 and had four minor children; divorce complaint filed December 2015.
Trial was continued several times; Dona’s counsel moved to withdraw on August 16, 2016 after Dona told counsel by email she wanted new counsel; the court allowed withdrawal but denied a continuance.
On August 22, 2016 (trial date) Dona appeared pro se; parties executed a Separation Agreement and Amended Shared Parenting Plan; remaining issues were spousal support, child support, and uninsured medical allocation.
Evidence: Anthony (partner at law firm) had variable compensation (draws, bonuses, employer-paid benefits) and testified taxable income ~ $124k–$132k; Dona earned ~$67,842 as a school physical therapist.
Magistrate awarded spousal support $250/month for 72 months and child support with a downward deviation to $1,500/month (or $1,341.07 with private insurance); court sustained some objections in part and adopted the remainder, then entered final decree December 28, 2016.
Dona appealed raising four assignments: denial of continuance (due process), inadequate spousal support, improper child-support computation/deviation, and failure to award attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dona)	Defendant's Argument (Anthony)	Held
1. Denial of continuance / due process	Trial court violated Dona’s due process by forcing her to proceed pro se after counsel withdrew; needed time to retain new counsel.	Court emphasized Dona discharged counsel two weeks before trial, prior continuances had occurred, and she delayed asking for continuance until trial; docket control.	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no due process violation.
2. Spousal support amount	$250/month for 72 months is inadequate and against the weight of the evidence.	Award was supported by incomes, relative earning ability, length of marriage, debts, and the court retained modification jurisdiction.	Award affirmed; court did not abuse discretion under R.C. 3105.18.
3. Child support deviation	Court should not have deviated downward from the guideline amount; appellee’s contributions were overstated.	Shared parenting, significant in-kind payments, tuition obligations and extra expenses justify downward deviation from guideline worksheet.	Downward deviation was supported by record (extraordinary/in-kind contributions); no abuse of discretion.
4. Attorney fees	Trial court failed to consider Dona’s request for attorney fees and substantial legal costs.	No evidentiary showing of reasonableness or amount of fees at trial; magistrate recommended each party pay own fees.	No abuse of discretion; fees properly denied absent supporting evidence.

State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (trial-court continuance decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (child-support deviation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (grounds and justification required to deviate from child-support guidelines)