Horak v. Horak
2018 Ohio 3659
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Jason Horak (Husband) and Sarah Horak Decker (Wife) married in 2006, have two children, and divorced after Husband filed in 2012; multiple interim orders and a final magistrate decision were entered and adopted by the trial court.
- Temporary order required Wife to pay the leased Cadillac and to escrow $2,000 of the 2012 tax refund; Wife did not escrow those funds and later spent part of the 2013 refund.
- Husband left employment at Frankie & Dylan’s (where he had earned as much as ~$75,000) and opened Horak’s Restoration in 2012; his business receipts showed large gross sales but little net profit for 2012–2013.
- Magistrate found Husband voluntarily underemployed, imputed $75,000 income for child-support calculation, and awarded child support to Wife but no spousal support; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Property division disputes included treatment of the 2012 and 2013 tax refunds, apportionment of any deficiency on the leased Cadillac, premarital vs. marital value of two classic cars (blue and orange "Cuda"), and valuation of a Dodge truck.
- On appeal Husband raised eight assignments of error; Ninth District affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded—sustaining limited relief regarding the court’s failure to account for the 2013 tax refund in the property division.
Issues
| Issue | Horak's Argument | Decker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husband was voluntarily underemployed and whether income could be imputed for child support | Leaving high-paying employment was not voluntary; leaving was for economic reasons and mutual family plans | Husband intentionally left to start his own business and was capable of earning prior income; trial court could disbelieve his account | Court held finding of voluntary underemployment was not against manifest weight; imputation of $75,000 was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether $75,000 was a proper imputed income amount | Trial court failed to account for Husband’s back condition, industry decline, and the long hours required to earn $75,000 | Court considered medical, skill, prior earnings, and found Husband capable of such earnings; evidence supported imputation | Imputation of $75,000 upheld as within trial court discretion |
| Whether Husband should receive credit against arrearages for 2012 and 2013 tax refunds | Husband sought credit (half) of refunds against child/spousal arrears; argued Wife violated temporary orders | Trial court treated $2,000 of 2012 refund as part of property division and later awarded Wife the 2013 refund | 2012 refund disposition was forfeited on appeal due to lack of objection; but trial court erred by failing to include the 2013 refund in the property-division spreadsheet—remanded for correction |
| Whether Wife should be solely responsible for any deficiency on the leased Cadillac | Wife was ordered to pay the car; Husband argued she should be solely liable for any deficiency and be held in contempt for failing to pay | Wife argued inability to pay due to Husband’s arrearages; payments were originally ordered to her and she drove the car | Trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering each party to pay half any deficiency given Husband’s arrears and equitable considerations |
| Whether trial court erred treating value increases of classic cars (blue/orange Cuda) as marital | Husband argued significant pre-marital investment and higher premarital values (blue Cuda worth tens of thousands pre-marriage) | Trial court/magistrate found insufficient proof of pre-marital investment; treated most appreciation as marital | Objections to orange Cuda forfeited for lack of specific objection; trial court’s $1,200 premarital finding for blue Cuda was not an abuse of discretion given Husband’s vague testimony |
| Whether truck equity was misvalued | Husband argued court failed to deduct outstanding indebtedness to compute actual equity | Trial court record lacked specific objection on this valuation | Objection was forfeited (no specific objection below); assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (a court may impute income to a parent under the child-support statute; imputation amount is discretionary)