Hilbert v. Hilbert
2016 Ohio 8099
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Wesley (Father) and Stephanie Hilbert (Mother) divorced in 2011 and adopted a shared-parenting plan with roughly 50/50 custody of two children.
- Initially both parents had similar incomes and the court had deviated downward to $0 child support; later Mother sought modifications after employment changes.
- In 2015 CSEA calculated Father's income very high; after hearing, the magistrate found CSEA overstated income but still set Father’s gross income for support at $109,322.57 and monthly support at $1,434.27.
- Magistrate split child dependency exemptions between parents; Father objected; the trial court overruled Father’s objections as to support but initially failed to rule on exemptions.
- After Father moved for clarification and while an appeal was pending, the trial court held a hearing and awarded Father both tax exemptions; both parties appealed different aspects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wesley) | Defendant's Argument (Stephanie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the court erred in calculating Father’s income for child support | Father: court overstated his income; his business had low net profit (~$17k) | Mother: Father’s self-reported low income was not credible; records show larger withdrawals and receipts | Court: No abuse of discretion — magistrate/trial court found Father’s testimony not credible and properly imputed additional income to reach $109,322.57 |
| 2) Whether court should impute income to Mother (voluntary underemployment) | Father: court should impute income to Mother because she was unemployed | Mother: she was involuntarily laid off and provided evidence of layoff; income consisted of unemployment | Court: No abuse of discretion — Father failed to prove Mother was voluntarily unemployed; no imputation ordered |
| 3) Whether court erred by refusing a downward deviation from guideline support | Father: downward deviation was warranted given shared parenting/time and prior deviation to $0 | Mother: disparity in current incomes favors no downward deviation; Father’s ability to pay increased | Court: No abuse of discretion — deviation not in children’s best interest given large disparity in incomes |
| 4) Whether trial court had jurisdiction to award tax exemptions while an appeal was pending | Mother: trial court lacked jurisdiction during Father’s pending appeal and should not have awarded exemptions to Father | Father: trial court retained jurisdiction over unresolved tax exemption issue and awarding exemptions served children’s best interest | Court: Trial court had jurisdiction over the unappealed exemption issue; awarding exemptions to Father was not an abuse of discretion (it yielded greater net tax benefit) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)