2015 Ohio 5482
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- David and Kimberly Cummin divorced in 2011; they have four minor children and shared parenting. Divorce decree ordered child support and spousal support; the court imputed $65,000 to Kimberly at divorce and based child support on parties’ high combined income (≈ $307k).
- In 2014 David moved to modify support; Kimberly filed cross-motion. Hearing focused on income; David (a physician) claimed reduced income due to fewer hours, increased deductions, lost tenants, and loss of a chief-of-staff stipend. Kimberly returned to work and earned ~ $68–69k.
- Trial court found David voluntarily underemployed, concluded the parties’ combined income was $320,586.40, refused to cap combined income at $150,000, reduced spousal support modestly, and increased child support from ~$832.59 to $1,371.83 per month.
- David appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by extrapolating child support beyond the $150,000 combined-income cap and (2) the court miscalculated/imputed his income and wrongly found voluntary underemployment.
- The appellate court affirmed the refusal to cap at $150,000 (no abuse of discretion) and upheld the voluntary-underemployment finding; but it reversed and remanded because the trial court’s entry did not specify the exact amount of income imputed to David as required by Rock v. Cabral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cummin) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court may "extrapolate" child support above the $150,000 combined-income schedule | Kimberly: trial court may calculate support on actual combined income > $150k and consider children’s needs/standard of living | David: court must cap calculations at the $150,000 combined-income level (i.e., not extrapolate) | Court: R.C. 3119.04(B) allows case-by-case determination for combined income > $150k; trial court reasonably declined to cap and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in finding David voluntarily underemployed and in imputing income | Kimberly: evidence supports imputing income given deductions, reduced productive investments, and travel/tax deductions | David: reduction in hours was intended for parenting; claimed income reductions were legitimate and not voluntary | Court: trial court’s factual finding of voluntary underemployment and decision to impute income was not an abuse of discretion, but trial court failed to state the exact amount of imputed potential income — remand required to specify imputed income and reasoning per Rock v. Cabral |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (standard: modification of child support is within trial court’s discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (1993) (trial court must be able to state amount of imputed potential income and reasons)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (trial-court factual findings entitled to deference)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (1992) (child-support statutes are mandatory and must be followed)