Ferriot v. Noga
2016 Ohio 7949
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Joseph Ferriot (father) and Alicia Noga (mother) are unmarried parents of two minor children; Father filed to establish parentage and allocation of parental rights in March 2014.
- Parties agreed to shared parenting with equal time, but a magistrate held a hearing on child support and recommended Father pay about $350/month; the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision.
- Father objected, arguing the magistrate miscalculated his income (including adding a depreciation ‘‘paper loss’’), that Mother earns more, and that equal parenting time and Mother's higher income make him an inappropriate obligor or justify a deviation.
- The trial court overruled objections and concluded Father should be the child-support obligor, referencing income calculations and asserted shared living expenses with Father’s wife.
- On appeal, the Ninth District reviewed whether the court made sufficient findings, whether depreciation was properly treated in income, and whether the court properly analyzed obligor designation and deviation.
- The appellate court (Hensal, J.) reversed and remanded as to whether Father should be the obligor and whether a deviation was properly considered, but upheld the adequacy of findings (given no Rule 52 request) and the inclusion of depreciation as an expense in income calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ferriot) | Defendant's Argument (Noga) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made adequate factual findings under Civ. R. 52 justifying naming Ferriot the child-support obligor | Findings insufficient to explain why lower-earning Father was obligor; requests more findings | Trial court already provided two pages of findings; no written Rule 52 request for additional findings | Overruled as to error: no Rule 52 request, so findings were adequate |
| Whether trial court erred by treating depreciation as income (nonrecurring cash flow) | Depreciation is a nonrecurring/tax-only item and should be excluded from income under Sec. 3119.01(C)(8) | Depreciation is an expense/loss and is included in ordinary business expenses under Sec. 3119.01(C)(9)(a) and thus in income calculations | Court upheld inclusion of depreciation in income calculation |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in naming Ferriot the child-support obligor despite equal parenting time and lower income | Naming him obligor and refusing deviation was unreasonable, arbitrary, and unsupported by record; shared expenses and wife’s contribution not shown | Magistrate considered equal time but rejected deviation based on shared living expenses, business benefits, and income findings | Sustained: appellate court found the trial court did not properly analyze obligor designation; remanded for further consideration |
| Whether trial court erred by not granting a downward deviation given equal parenting time | A downward deviation was warranted because parties share parenting time and Mother has higher income; Father’s business benefits mitigate support obligation | Equal parenting time alone does not mandate deviation; magistrate/current court cited shared expenses and business-funded benefits | Sustained: court failed to properly analyze deviation factors; remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (explains standard of review for child support decisions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard)