Chandler v. Chandler
2017 Ohio 710
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Keith and Krista Chandler divorced (decree entered May 9, 2012); they share one child and agreed to a shared parenting plan.
- Original child support was set around $776/month in the 2012 divorce decree; multiple post-decree motions followed.
- Parties submitted an Amended Shared Parenting Plan in December 2015 providing equal parenting time but leaving child support to the court; a magistrate hearing on child support was held December 3, 2015.
- Magistrate found Keith voluntarily underemployed, imputed $60,164 to his income, and computed his gross annual income as $109,000 (business draw $26,000 + VA benefits $22,836 + imputed $60,164), ordering $1,012.15/month in child support.
- Trial court overruled Keith’s objections and approved the magistrate’s decision; this appeal followed.
- Court affirmed the child support calculation and denial of a downward deviation, but remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction to mark the custodial designation as “Shared” on the Child Support Computation Worksheet.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by finding appellant voluntarily underemployed and imputing $60,164 | Keith: finding is against the manifest weight; he draws a modest salary to build business | Krista: testimony and business assets show Keith has ability to earn prior/pre-divorce income; imputation appropriate | Court: affirmed — not against manifest weight; imputation within trial court discretion |
| Whether trial court should have granted a downward deviation for equal parenting time | Keith: equal parenting time (since decree) justifies downward deviation; should consider extended parenting time | Krista: parenting time unchanged since decree; incomes and best interest factors don’t support deviation | Court: affirmed denial of downward deviation — no abuse of discretion; but ordered nunc pro tunc fix to label custodial status as Shared |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (statutory framework for imputing income; subjective intent not required)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (in shared parenting, both parents are residential parents)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (abuse-of-discretion standard for child support matters)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (clarifying manifest-weight review)