2023 Ohio 393
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Parties married in 2008, two minor children; divorce filed by Audra Doubler in 2019; trial on remaining issues (spousal and child support) occurred October 2020 after parties agreed to custody, property division, and separation agreement.
- May 28, 2021 journal entry contained divorce, separation agreement, shared parenting plan, and rulings; earlier appeal was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.
- Trial court issued a "Final Judgment Entry" (nunc pro tunc) on December 28, 2021 attaching the child-support worksheet; appellant Steven Doubler appealed that entry.
- Major contested points on appeal: the finality of the December 28 entry; accuracy of incomes used to calculate spousal and child support; whether the court considered all R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) spousal-support factors; whether child-support worksheet credited/deducted court-ordered spousal support; and whether the court applied the automatic 10% reduction or otherwise made required findings when overnights exceeded 147.
- The Ninth District affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded—sustaining errors as to income calculations, failure to consider all income sources and statutory credits/automatic deviations for child support, and directing further proceedings on spousal and child support.
Issues
| Issue | Audra's (Plaintiff) Argument | Steven's (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final appealable order (Civ.R. 75(F)) | December 28, 2021 entry incorporated prior entries and was final | May 28 order lacked incorporation language; not final/appealable | Court: December 28 entry contained sufficient incorporation language; assignment I overruled (order is final) |
| Spousal support: income and statutory factors (R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)) | Trial court properly considered factors and used parties' incomes | Trial court failed to consider all income sources (wife's additional part‑time earnings) and misapplied husband's 2020 income | Court: abuse of discretion — trial court did not consider all income sources; assignments II, V, VI sustained; remand for reconsideration |
| Child support: income calculation; spousal support credit/deduction; automatic reduction for overnight parenting time (R.C. 3119.051/3119.231) | Child‑support worksheet and order were correct as entered | Worksheet omitted credit/deduction for court‑ordered spousal support; failed to apply 10% reduction for >=90 overnights and failed to state reasons for denying deviation despite >=147 overnights | Court: sustained assignments III, VIII, IX, X — trial court must include spousal support in gross incomes/credits and apply or explain denial of statutory automatic reduction/deviation; remand required |
| Retroactive modification and health‑insurance obligor | No retroactive modification; mother is presumptively appropriate health‑insurance obligor | Trial court retroactively modified temporary orders; father should provide insurance | Court: no retroactive modification occurred (assignment IV overruled); health‑insurance assignment to mother upheld because father failed to rebut presumption and waived the argument (assignment XIII overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (1997) (standards for appellate review of spousal‑support determinations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (spousal support is within trial court discretion)
- Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (1990) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for trial court on discretionary matters)