Dodaro v. Dodaro
2019 Ohio 4864
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Steven and Manilyn Dodaro married March 23, 2013; one child born August 27, 2013. Manilyn filed for divorce August 12, 2016. An agreed entry in March 2018 resolved non-financial parental rights and part of property issues.
- After trial, the domestic-relations court (Aug. 22, 2018) entered decree of divorce: set child support (including cash medical support), divided real and personal property and retirement accounts, denied spousal support, and found Steven in contempt for failing to comply with a temporary support order.
- Key factual/contention points: Steven is self-employed as a plumber with inconsistent yearly income; he claimed various business deductions on tax returns (including vehicle/depreciation and cost of goods sold); he asserted certain assets were separate property (Reynoldsburg house equity, a Roth IRA contribution, and a WesBanco account held in his name with his parents).
- The trial court allowed only limited business expense deductions for child-support purposes, averaged Steven’s income for 2013–2016, declined to impute income (found Steven not voluntarily underemployed), and characterized and divided the contested assets (finding a marital portion of the Reynoldsburg property and Roth IRA contribution, and that one-third of the increase in the WesBanco account was Steven’s marital share).
- Both parties appealed: Steven challenged income/child-support calculation and property divisions; Manilyn cross-appealed, contesting the court’s voluntary-underemployment finding, the use of income averaging, and the WesBanco-account allocation. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to correct the calculation of Steven’s one‑third interest in the WesBanco account.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manilyn) | Defendant's Argument (Steven) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Proper calculation of Steven's income for child support and allowable business expense deductions | Trial court properly disallowed noncash/personal-use items and unproven COGS; deductions must be supported | Tax returns prepared by CPA with attachments establish deductions and should be accepted | Court upheld trial court: Steven failed to prove/demonstrate the expenses for child‑support purposes; affirmed. |
| 2) Exclusion of Steven's 2017 tax return at trial | Discovery sanction/exclusion was proper or any exclusion lacked prejudice | Trial court erred in excluding 2017 return and it was critical to income determination | Steven failed to identify record/proffer or show prejudice; argument waived/without merit. |
| 3) Whether Steven was voluntarily underemployed (imputing potential income) | Steven voluntarily limited work and income; impute income under R.C. factors | Steven’s age and physical ailments limit hours; income history consistent with limited hours — not voluntary | Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding Steven not voluntarily underemployed; appellate court affirmed. |
| 4) Appropriateness of averaging income across years for child support | Averaging was improper because some years were partial (time in Philippines) and 2015 was the only full year | Averaging appropriate given inconsistent income from self-employment | Court did not abuse discretion in averaging 2013–2016 income; affirmed. |
| 5) Characterization of assets: Reynoldsburg house equity, Roth IRA contribution, WesBanco account interest | Manilyn: portions of these assets were marital and divisible; trial court allocation (including one-third marital share of WesBanco increase) was correct | Steven: entire Reynoldsburg equity, $12,000 Roth contribution, and WesBanco funds were separate property | Court found house equity and Roth contribution determination supported by record (afforded to marital share); sustained most holdings but corrected starting balance for WesBanco and remanded to recompute Steven’s one‑third marital share as $6,923.27 (modifying trial math). |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (child-support matters reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion defined)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (trial-court factual findings entitled to deference due to witness-credibility determinations)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (child-support statutes are mandatory and focus on child’s best interest)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (courts must follow child-support statute literally and technically)
- In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (appellate courts should not substitute judgment for trial factfinder)
- Murray v. Murray, 128 Ohio App.3d 662 (obligor's income is the starting point for child-support calculations)
- Baus v. Baus, 72 Ohio App.3d 781 (noncash deductions like depreciation ordinarily should not reduce income for child-support purposes)