In re B.P.
2015 Ohio 4352
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Father (Gregory P.) and Mother (Jennifer P.) are divorced parents of two minor children; Mother obtained custody and sought child support in domestic relations court; matter transferred to juvenile court.
- Father is sole shareholder of Greg’s Towing, Inc., a closely-held towing business; parties stipulated that tax returns of the parents and the business would be the sole evidence at trial.
- Magistrate included the company’s depreciation deductions in Father’s gross income for child support and issued an award; magistrate later amended the decision to correct support for periods Mother lacked custody.
- Father objected to the magistrate’s decision claiming (1) depreciation and truck-loan costs should be deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses, and (2) the court failed to perform a R.C. 3119.04(B) case-by-case analysis; he also later challenged the retroactive effective date of support.
- Trial court overruled Father’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether depreciation deductions on corporate tax returns should be excluded from Father’s gross income as ordinary and necessary business expenses | Depreciation deductions may be included in gross income absent evidence they represent cash outlays in the year taken | Depreciation for trucks/equipment should be deducted from gross income as ordinary and necessary business expenses | Court: Include depreciation in gross income because Father failed to prove the deductions represented actual cash expenditures in those years; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the court failed to perform a R.C. 3119.04(B) case-by-case analysis of children’s needs and standard of living | Mother implicitly contends the statutory factors were considered or that objection was forfeited | Court failed to perform required case-by-case analysis under R.C. 3119.04(B) (argued by Father) | Court: Argument forfeited—Father did not make a specific, timely objection to the magistrate’s decision or properly supplement his objections; issue not preserved on appeal |
| Whether the trial court erred by setting the child support order retroactively | Mother relied on magistrate’s effective dates; no timely objection to effective date | Retroactive modification of temporary support was improper without motion to modify (argued by Father) | Court: Argument forfeited—Father did not object to magistrate’s effective dates below; cannot raise on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (trial-court child-support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Huelskamp v. Huelskamp, 185 Ohio App.3d 611 (third dist.) (tax-return depreciation alone insufficient to show actual cash expense for support calculations)
- Foster v. Foster, 150 Ohio App.3d 298 (twelfth dist.) (to deduct depreciation from income, actual cash expenditure in same tax year must be shown)
- In re Custody of Harris, 168 Ohio App.3d 1 (second dist.) (courts should guard against tax-return manipulation to conceal income available for support)