Carver v. Carver
2015 Ohio 3941
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Joseph C. Carver and Shirley J. Carver divorced in 2005; two children were born of the marriage and Joseph was ordered to pay child support.
- Joseph was employed as a doctor before his 2012 felony conviction for false statements and concealment of assets in bankruptcy and was sentenced to two years in prison.
- While incarcerated (more than 12 months), Joseph made no child support payments. He was released early in November 2013 and received short-term salary advancements but did not make payments until March 2014.
- Trial court found Joseph in contempt for failure to pay and denied retroactive modification of support before April 9, 2014, concluding it would be unjust and not in the children’s best interests to impute no income for the incarceration period.
- Joseph appealed, arguing the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) and the trial court erred by imputing income while he was incarcerated in violation of R.C. 3119.05(I)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether income may be imputed to a parent incarcerated 12+ months under R.C. 3119.05(I)(2) for purposes of child-support modification and whether the trial court/CSEA erred by imputing income during incarceration | Carver: statute prohibits imputing income to a parent incarcerated 12 months or more, so CSEA and the court should not have imputed income or denied modification for the incarceration period | Respondent: exception in R.C. 3119.05(I) permits imputing income when not imputing would be unjust, inappropriate, or not in the child's best interest; facts (prior employment, post-release advances, dependence of mother/children) support imputation and denial of retroactive relief | Court affirmed: although R.C. 3119.05(I)(2) generally bars imputing income during long incarceration, an exception allows imputation when failing to impute would be unjust or not in the child’s best interest; trial court did not abuse discretion and correctly limited modification to April 9, 2014 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (1997) (modification of child support reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Burrows v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997) (interpretation of clear statutory language; intent of General Assembly determined from plain text)
- State v. Kormos, 974 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio App. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Campbell v. City of Carlisle, 939 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio 2010) (no need to interpret statute when language is plain and unambiguous)