Greathouse v. Hilliard
2017 Ohio 2636
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Heather Hilliard moved on Sept. 16, 2015 to modify child support previously set at $0; hearing held Jan. 6, 2016 and magistrate issued decision Jan. 26, 2016.
- Magistrate’s decision increased father Brett Greathouse’s child support to $506.35/month and divided tax dependency exemptions between the parties; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Greathouse filed objections; on May 4, 2016 the trial court sustained his objection as to child support and set support back to $0 but kept the magistrate’s allocation of the tax exemptions.
- Hilliard appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not considering whether Greathouse exercised his parenting time (which she said justified modification) and (2) the court erred in awarding Greathouse a tax dependency exemption when support was denied and no evidence showed benefit to the children.
- The appellate court reviewed (a) whether sufficient evidence showed a substantial change in circumstances for modification under R.C. 3119.79 and (b) whether the trial court considered the statutory factors for allocating tax exemptions under R.C. 3119.82.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hilliard) | Defendant's Argument (Greathouse) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not considering if father failed to exercise parenting time as basis to modify support | Hilliard: unrebutted evidence (father not exercising ordered parenting time) justified modifying support from $0 | Greathouse: no admissible evidence showed he failed to exercise parenting time; magistrate/trial court properly required proof | Held: Overruled. Statements of counsel are not evidence; record lacked sworn testimony showing failure to exercise parenting time, so court did not err |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding one dependency exemption to each parent while denying child support | Hilliard: allocation was agreed only in context of expected support modification; once support modification was denied, court needed to apply R.C. 3119.82 factors | Greathouse: allocation was previously agreed and not objected to below | Held: Sustained. Trial court abused discretion because record contains no evidence or findings applying R.C. 3119.82 factors after modification was denied; allocation vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (1998) (trial court child support decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Corporate Exchange Buildings IV & V L.P. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 82 Ohio St.3d 297 (1998) (statements of counsel are not evidence)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for trial court on discretionary matters)
- Wallace v. Wallace, 195 Ohio App.3d 314 (2011) (appellate review of factual findings supporting child support is for manifest weight of the evidence)