Clark v. Clark
2015 Ohio 3818
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Tina Clark (appellant) and David Clark (appellee) divorced in 2002; Tina was residential parent and David was ordered to pay child support. Child-support orders were modified several times between 2004 and 2012.
- In 2014 CSEA administratively reviewed David’s support and, after a hearing, calculated his income at $39,479 and recommended increased support; Tina objected and appealed to the trial court.
- Evidence included David’s federal tax returns (adjusted gross incomes of ~$21k in 2011, ~$26k in 2012, amended ~$17.9k in 2013), testimony about his welding business (Global Welding/Global Industrial Maintenance), prior billing rates ($25–$50/hr), and testimony from a former partner about billing and bookkeeping practices.
- The magistrate and trial court adopted CSEA’s $39,479 income figure and increased David’s child support to $448.44/month (with insurance) or $427.35/month plus $77.42 medical (without insurance); Tina appealed only the imputed-income amount.
- Tina argued the court should impute income based on David’s admitted hourly rates (assuming full-time 40x50 weeks), producing ~$50,000–$100,000; the court relied on statutory factors for imputing potential income and found the $39,479 figure reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in amount of imputed income to David | Clark: court should impute income using David’s admitted hourly rate without deducting business expenses (yielding $50k–$100k) | David/CSEA: $39,479 (based on regional average welder wage and statutory factors) is reasonable; David did not contest the figure below | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; $39,479 properly imputed based on R.C. 3119.01(C)(11)(a) factors and credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (recognizes trial court's broad discretion in child support determinations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Marchel v. Marchel, 160 Ohio App.3d 240 (appellate review of magistrate’s decision is for abuse of discretion)