DiBiase v. DiBiase
2013 Ohio 2879
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Paul A. DiBiase, Jr. appeals a Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas modification of his child support obligation after the oldest child reached the age of majority.
- The parties have four children and, with combined income over $150,000, child support is determined case-by-case under R.C. 3119.04(B).
- The magistrate extrapolated a child-support figure using the formula for incomes under $150,000; the trial court adopted this extrapolated amount.
- Oldest child emancipation, hearings in 2011, and an interim order leading to a final extrapolated amount of $4,529.63 per month.
- Magistrate found Appellant’s income rose to $317,450 and Appellee’s income decreased; expenses were discussed and considered.
- The trial court affirmed the magistrate’s decision after conducting an independent review and addressing objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court independently review the magistrate's decision? | DiBiase claims the court failed to independently review. | Court did independently review the magistrate's findings and objections. | Yes; independent review conducted; no abuse. |
| Did the court properly consider needs and living standards under R.C. 3119.04(B) for high combined income? | Court ignored needs and standard of living. | Court complied with statutory requirements and used extrapolation. | Properly considered; extrapolation permissible. |
| Is extrapolation from the under-$150,000 worksheet valid when combined income exceeds $150,000? | Extrapolation was improper for high-income case. | Extrapolation is allowed per Cho and Ellis with consideration of needs. | Valid; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was the magistrate biased or otherwise improper in handling evidence and expenses? | Magistrate biased in favor of Appellee. | Magistrate credibility determinations were proper; no bias shown. | No substantial bias shown; decisions based on credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cho v. Cho, 2003-Ohio-7111 (7th Dist. 2003) (supports extrapolating child-support figures using the under-$150,000 worksheet for higher incomes)
- Ellis v. Ellis, 2009-Ohio-4964 (7th Dist. 2009) (upholds extrapolation method after considering needs and standard of living)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997) (modification of child support; abuse of discretion standard with statutory requirements)
- Sapinsley v. Sapinsley, 171 Ohio App.3d 74 (7th Dist. 2007) (affirms consideration of needs and living standards in high-income cases)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (establishes that trial courts must follow statutory requirements in child-support orders)