Daubenmire v. Daubenmire
2019 Ohio 2372
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Chad and Meghan Daubenmire divorced in July 2014 after 19 years; decree incorporated parties’ settlement on spousal and child support.
- The decree stipulated Chad’s income at $169,560 for support calculations; Meghan was shown with zero earned income.
- Spousal support: $1,140.50/month (with an agreed increase when a house-payment obligation ends); court reserved jurisdiction to modify.
- Child support: parties agreed to a deviation and fixed child-support amount of $1,451.75/month plus processing fee.
- Nine months after the decree Chad moved to modify spousal and child support, claiming a large drop in business income (2013 high vs. 2014 lower income).
- Magistrate and trial court denied the motion, finding Chad failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances not contemplated at the time of the agreement; Chad appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chad) | Defendant's Argument (Meghan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying modification of spousal support | Chad claimed his business income fell substantially after divorce, making existing spousal support unreasonable | Meghan and court relied on parties’ stipulated income and the fact fluctuations in business income were known/foreseeable | No abuse of discretion; Chad failed to show a substantial, unanticipated change in circumstances |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying modification of child support | Chad argued reduced income warranted recalculation under R.C. 3119.79 | Meghan relied on the parties’ agreed deviation and stipulated income level; decline was foreseeable | Denial affirmed; because the original order resulted from agreement, Chad had to show change not contemplated — he did not |
| Whether trial court erred by not calculating Chad’s income for modification determination | Chad argued court should have calculated current income to assess change | Meghan argued objection wasn’t preserved; trial court had discretion and found evidence insufficient | Issue forfeited for failure to object at trial court; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (standard: appellate review of spousal-support modification is abuse of discretion)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (2009) (interpreting requirement of substantial change in circumstances to modify spousal support)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is disfavored and applies only in extremely rare circumstances)