Croucher v. Croucher
2016 Ohio 726
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Steven and Beth Croucher married in 1994 and have three minor children; Beth filed for divorce in August 2013.
- Steven was laid off from Verizon in 2010; since June 2012 he has worked part‑time for the City of Beavercreek (~26 hrs/week, ~$8,472/yr) and receives ≈$3,000/yr inheritance income. He holds a BS in MIS and an MBA.
- Steven testified he used job sites/headhunters and pursued continuing education but offered little documentary proof and did not complete certification testing.
- Vocational expert for Beth opined Steven is qualified for project‑manager/IT positions in Dayton with entry salaries roughly $46,000–$67,000 and that over 1,000 suitable jobs existed locally; average job‑search time ≈32 weeks.
- Beth is a nurse practitioner earning $59,000/yr plus $11,100/yr adjunct income, is the residential parent, provides health insurance for the children, and cares for one child with a severe genetic disorder.
- Trial court found Steven voluntarily underemployed, imputed annual income of $56,050 for child‑support purposes, denied Steven spousal‑support, and allocated dependency exemptions as described; Steven appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Beth) | Defendant's Argument (Steven) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Steven was voluntarily underemployed and whether income may be imputed for child support | Steven is capable of earning market income; imputation appropriate based on vocational evidence and his lack of job‑pursuit proof | Imputation was improper because he had reasonable grounds for reduced earnings and provided explanations for his employment choices | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding of voluntary underemployment and imputation of $56,050/yr |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying spousal support | Spousal support not needed; parties each have income and assets, similar age/health, no additional training required, modest marital standard of living | Steven argued he needs spousal support given his lower current earnings | Court affirmed: trial court considered R.C. 3105.18 factors and did not abuse discretion in denying support |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 616 N.E.2d 218 (statement that voluntary underemployment is a fact question for the trial court)
- Gregory v. Gregory, 877 N.E.2d 333 (Ohio App.) (trial court should consider R.C. 3119.01(C)(11) factors when imputing income)