History
  • No items yet
midpage
Funkhouser v. Funkhouser
2019 Ohio 733
Ohio Ct. App.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Mirna (plaintiff/appellee) filed for divorce in 2009; final decree (2014) named her residential parent and legal custodian of three children and required Mark (defendant/appellant) to pay child support.
  • Parties later sought modifications; by October 27, 2017 they agreed in writing that the eldest child (N.F.) would be placed with Mark; the parties proceeded pro se at hearing. N.F. turned 18 during the appeal.
  • Magistrate heard remaining contested issue (child support allocation) and issued a decision; trial court conducted an independent review after objections and overruled all objections in a June 14, 2018 judgment.
  • Trial court recalculated support using the split-parenting worksheet (R.C. 3119.023) and set Mark’s modified support at $506.74/month (annual $6,080.88), allocating uninsured medical expenses 72% to Mark and 28% to Mirna.
  • Mark appealed, raising five assignments: (1) custody terminology (residential vs. residential and legal custodian); (2) failure to find Mirna voluntarily unemployed/underemployed; (3) imputation of Mirna’s income; (4) allocation of uninsured medical expenses; (5) overruling magistrate objections generally. Court affirmed trial court.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Funkhouser) Defendant's Argument (Mirna) Held
Custody wording for N.F.: whether trial court should have named Mark as "residential and custodial parent" Trial court failed to reflect parties’ written agreement; omission created uncertainty about custodial status Parties intended Mark to have primary care; Mirna said legal custodial change was unnecessary and moot as N.F. neared 18 Court found intent to transfer custody satisfied; referring to Mark as "residential parent" was sufficient and not an abuse of discretion
Finding of voluntary unemployment/underemployment and imputing income to Mirna Court should have found Mirna voluntarily underemployed and imputed higher income (or the 2013 figure) Mirna testified to modest self-employment income, caregiving and health constraints; trial court credited her income evidence Court held trial court had competent, credible evidence to use Mirna’s lower gross income; no abuse of discretion and no specific voluntary-unemployment finding required
Imputation of incomes and allocation of uninsured medical expenses If higher income imputed to Mirna, allocation should have been ~60% Mirna / 40% Mark; current allocation was incorrect Using the split-parent worksheet with the incomes adopted by the court produced 28% Mirna / 72% Mark allocation Court upheld worksheet calculations and allocation; competent evidence supported the income figures used, so allocation stands
Accuracy of appellant’s occupational description and record details Record mislabeled Mark’s occupation (flight paramedic vs. flight mechanic), which should be corrected Trial court used Mark’s testimony-supported income number; occupation label immaterial to support calculation Court found no prejudice from occupational label omission; income determination was supported and not against manifest weight

Key Cases Cited

  • Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
  • Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (presumption that trial court custody findings are correct)
  • Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (shared-parenting and custody review principles)
  • Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1999) (definition of residential parent/legal custodian under R.C. 3109.04)
  • Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (voluntary unemployment/underemployment is factual question for trial court)
  • Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (when worksheet calculations are used, deviation findings are not required)
  • Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 1997) (standards for child support determination and appellate review)
  • Morrow v. Becker, 138 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review of child support modification)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Funkhouser v. Funkhouser
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Mar 1, 2019
Citation: 2019 Ohio 733
Docket Number: E-18-039
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.