Dawn Guba v. Huron County, Ohio
695 F. App'x 98
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Guba (custodial parent) and Ward (noncustodial) had a Michigan child‑support order; both later moved to Ohio and sought enforcement through Huron County CSEA.
- From May 2006–Nov 2008 child‑support payments were processed without dispute; trouble began after attempts to modify the order and a magistrate noted the original registration was for enforcement only, raising jurisdictional issues.
- Huron CSEA attorney Heather Carman made several unsuccessful filings (2008–2012) to properly register or modify the foreign order; by Aug 20, 2012 both Ohio and Michigan enforcement had been closed, leaving no active enforcement.
- Plaintiffs allege that after 2009 Ward continued to make payments (including cash payments and possible tax intercepts) to Huron CSEA that were not remitted to Guba; they produced deposition testimony but no documentary proof of withheld funds.
- Defendants produced a payment history (through Feb 28, 2013) showing receipts and disbursements; it reflected that funds received from Ward in 2009–2010 were fully disbursed to Guba. District court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs had a protected property or liberty interest beyond receipt of specific child‑support payments | Guba/Ward asserted broader liberty interests in benefiting from child‑support systems and family integrity | Defendants argued the only cognizable interest was the right to specific child‑support payments owed and remitted | Court limited protection to property interest in child‑support payments actually made but not received, rejecting broad liberty claims |
| Whether plaintiffs were deprived of protected property (payments made to agency but not remitted) | Plaintiffs relied on depositions alleging Ward paid cash and that tax intercepts occurred and were not paid to Guba | Defendants showed payment history reporting receipts and matching disbursements to Guba and challenged admissibility/weight of plaintiffs’ testimony | Court held plaintiffs failed to produce admissible evidence that any payments or tax intercepts were taken by CSEA and not remitted; no genuine dispute of material fact |
| Admissibility/weight of deposition testimony (hearsay, conjecture) | Plaintiffs argued testimony from investigator, Ward, and Guba created factual disputes | Defendants argued some testimony was hearsay, others were vague, uncorroborated, or irrelevant in time | Court excluded or discounted hearsay/unsubstantiated testimony and required documentary evidence to survive summary judgment |
| Appropriate use of summary judgment standard | Plaintiffs contended district court misapplied summary judgment and should have drawn all inferences for plaintiffs | Defendants argued the record lacks evidence on an essential element (deprivation) and summary judgment is appropriate | Court applied de novo review and concluded no reasonable juror could find deprivation by preponderance; affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Gen. Elec. Co., 556 F.3d 428 (6th Cir.) (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for whether reasonable jurors could find for the plaintiff at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct.) (movant need not negate opponent’s claim; nonmoving party must show essential elements)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Sup. Ct.) (viewing facts and inferences at summary judgment)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (Sup. Ct.) (pre/postdeprivation procedure due‑process framework)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (Sup. Ct.) (defining fundamental liberty interests)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (Sup. Ct.) (characterization of child‑support enforcement systems)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (Sup. Ct.) (scope of interests protected by procedural due process)
- U.S. Structures, Inc. v. J.P. Structures, Inc., 130 F.3d 1185 (6th Cir.) (admissibility principles at summary judgment)
- Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587 (6th Cir.) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive summary judgment)
- Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir.) (parental liberty interest in parent‑child relationship)