Haldy v. Hoeffel
2017 Ohio 8786
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother Lisa Haldy filed a paternity/support action after Todd Hoeffel signed an Acknowledgement of Paternity for child S.H.; genetic testing later confirmed paternity.
- Magistrate initially set child support in 2013; Hoeffel later sought modification after job loss and temporary changes were made pending review.
- A July 13, 2016 hearing received testimony (including an accountant) and exhibits; the magistrate issued a decision on October 31, 2016 modifying support to $949.40/month (plus 2%) and awarding Haldy $4,500 in attorney fees.
- Hoeffel objected; the trial court independently reviewed and adopted the magistrate’s decision on April 25, 2017. Hoeffel appealed, raising five assignments of error relating to calculation of income, deviation percentage for shared parenting, business expense deductions, daycare credit, and attorney fees.
- The appellate court reviewed for plain error where Hoeffel had not properly objected to magistrate findings and otherwise applied abuse-of-discretion review for child-support and fee determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haldy) | Defendant's Argument (Hoeffel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether support was miscalculated/against manifest weight | Magistrate’s calculation and exhibits supported income findings | Trial court failed to deduct certain business cash expenditures from income | No plain error; credible evidence supported the court’s income findings; assignment overruled |
| 2. Proper deviation for shared parenting time | Deviation applied (20%) was reasonable under R.C. 3119.22-.24 | Hoeffel sought a 40% downward deviation based on ~40% parenting time | No abuse of discretion; court justified 20% deviation and entered required findings |
| 3. Deduction of business expenses from income | Only ordinary, necessary business expenses properly deducted; magistrate deducted limited items | Hoeffel argued broader business expense deductions (including personal items) | No abuse of discretion; court found many alleged "business" expenses were personal and properly excluded |
| 4. Credit for daycare expenses | Haldy preserved that daycare credits must be "approved by the court" and supported by evidence | Hoeffel sought $12,000 annual credit for daycare without adequate, specific documentation | No abuse of discretion; insufficient evidence of actual, approved daycare expenses; credit denied |
| 5. Award of attorney fees for discovery abuses | Fees were warranted because Hoeffel delayed and resisted discovery; billing submitted | Hoeffel contended award was improper/unreasonable | No abuse of discretion; court awarded $4,500 based on Civ.R. 37 practice and evidence of fees; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals is disfavored and applies only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (trial court is best positioned to weigh witness credibility in support calculations)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard governs child-support orders)
- Depalmo v. Depalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (1997) (trial court must journalize worksheet amount, determination that amount would be unjust, and supporting findings when deviating)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (1992) (requirements for journalizing deviations from guideline support)
- Stuart v. Stuart, 144 Ohio St. 289 (1944) (attorney-fee awards in domestic relations are committed to trial court discretion)