Cox v. Cox
2017 Ohio 1010
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Douglas and Stacy Cox divorced in 2015; parties imputed Mother's income at $35,000 and agreed to impute Father's income at $280,000 for support calculations.
- Divorce decree ordered Father to pay $7,250/month spousal support for seven years, plus 32.4% of income above $280,000 up to $500,000, and $425/month child support.
- Shortly after the decree, Father’s business lost revenue after an anticipated $3.3M contract was reduced to $947,000; Father moved to modify child and spousal support about six weeks after the decree.
- Mother filed a contempt motion for Father’s unpaid support; a magistrate denied modification and found Father in contempt for arrearages.
- Father sought to supplement the record with his 2015 tax return when objecting to the magistrate; the trial court declined to consider the return and overruled his objections.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s contempt finding and payment/purge orders; Father appealed, asserting (1) error denying modification, (2) error refusing to hear 2015 tax return, and (3) error finding contempt despite alleged inability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stacy) | Defendant's Argument (Douglas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in refusing to modify spousal/child support for substantial change in circumstances | Support should remain as ordered (no change required because parties anticipated volatility) | Business income dropped substantially due to contract reduction and other factors, warranting modification | Denied. Court found the income volatility and risk of decreased income were contemplated when parties agreed to $280,000 base, so change was not an unanticipated substantial change |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to accept Father’s 2015 tax return when ruling on objections | 2015 return is relevant and highly probative to show actual annual income for modification | Trial court need not consider a full-year tax return for a motion filed before year-end; may be considered in a later modification motion | No abuse of discretion. Court declined to consider 2015 return given timing of the motion but left open future use in new motion |
| Whether trial court erred in finding Father in contempt for nonpayment given inability to pay | Father lacked ability to pay and had made substantial payments elsewhere; inability to pay is a defense | Mother demonstrated arrearage; Father chose other expenditures (trips, college payments, vehicle, leisure), undermining claim of inability to pay | No error. Father failed to prove inability to pay; record showed discretionary spending instead of satisfying support obligations |
| Whether trial court should have weighed credibility differently regarding the timing and extent of income loss | (implicit) Father’s rapid filing after decree was reasonable given sudden contract loss beyond his control | Father’s credibility weakened by inconsistent documents (e.g., loan application stating higher income); court properly considered credibility | Court resolution affirmed; concurring judge emphasized credibility as a proper basis for denying modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard for appellate review)
- Bean v. Bean, 14 Ohio App.3d 358 (12th Dist. 1984) (inability to pay is a valid defense in contempt proceedings)