Cornell v. Cornell
2015 Ohio 5296
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Parties divorced in 2005 and agreed to shared parenting of their daughter with roughly equal time; no child support was ordered then.
- At divorce, Carrie earned ~$22,000 and Kevin ~$19,600; Kevin paid $125/month toward daycare and each parent split child-related expenses and health insurance duties.
- In August 2014 Carrie moved to order child support. A magistrate imputed $39,000 income to Carrie, recalculated support, and ordered Kevin to pay $200/month plus $40/month on an arrearage.
- The trial court overruled Kevin’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision; Kevin appealed.
- The court’s modification analysis relied on R.C. 3119.79 (10% deviation test) and the child support schedule/worksheet; it also considered deviation factors under R.C. 3119.22/.23.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carrie) | Defendant's Argument (Kevin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a substantial change in circumstances occurred to justify modifying child support | Recalculation under the guidelines shows support due; worksheet deviation >10% so modification is required | No material change in circumstances; Carrie’s income rose then fell, no daycare now, Kevin provides insurance and significant parenting time and expenses | Modification proper: worksheet showed >10% deviation from prior $0 order, so change of circumstances existed |
| Whether court abused discretion by refusing to deviate support down to $0 | Calculated amount (minus allowed deviation for parenting time) is presumptively correct; court may deviate but must support it | Shared parenting and Kevin’s in-kind payments/roughly equal time justify deviation to zero | No abuse: court granted ~39.7% downward deviation for parenting time but reasonable to refuse full deviation to $0 given evidence and lack of detailed proof of in-kind expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (trial court must treat a zero prior order as meeting the 10% deviation test when guidelines show support is owed)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (any deviation from worksheet must be journalized with factual findings)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (standard of appellate review for child support is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Quint v. Lomakoski, 173 Ohio App.3d 146 (parties' prior agreement cannot override court's duty to review child support upon request)