In re J.M.G.
2013 Ohio 2693
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- J.M.G. born Aug. 3, 2008; CSEA issued admin child support order in 2009 ($4,528.11/mo + 2% fee)
- RB challenged the admin order and sought modification in custody action; objections were dismissed in 2009
- RB filed separate support action Dec 8, 2009; argued excessive support and need to modify due to changed circumstances
- Trial court later (2011-2012) denied objections as untimely, then on remand adopted magistrate’s decision with modified support via extrapolation
- Court used extrapolation under RC 3119.04(B) given high combined income; RB appeals seven assignments; court affirms
- Record shows RB earns about $470,000 annually; J.G. unemployed, lives with parents; J.M.G. to be maintained at reasonable standard of living via extrapolation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent review of magistrate’s decision | RB argues no proper Civ.R. 53 review | Rocco defends adequate independent review | No abuse; independent review adequate. |
| Savings statute applicability to admin-order objections | RB relies on savings statute (R.C. 2305.19) | State argues savings statute not applicable | Savings statute not applicable; objections untimely. |
| Objections after correcting procedural defects and hearing rights | RB denied meaningful hearing after defects fixed | Issues arose from custody case; not proper subject | No reversible error; not proper subject in this case. |
| Use of extrapolation method under RC 3119.04(B) | Extrapolation yields excessive support beyond needs | Extrapolation permissible in high-income cases | Court properly used extrapolation; not an abuse. |
| Standard of living vs needs; potential spousal-like award | Award amounts resemble spousal support | Not spousal; aimed at child’s reasonable living | Not spousal; considers child’s and parents’ living standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gobel v. Rivers, 2010-Ohio-4493 (8th Dist. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing magistrate rulings)
- Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (1993) (independent review required by Civ.R. 53 and Juv.R. 40)
- Siebert v. Tavarez, 2007-Ohio-2643 (8th Dist. 2007) (needs and standard of living factors under RC 3119.04(B))
- Lanham v. Mierzwiak, 2011-Ohio-6190 (6th Dist. 2011) (extrapolation method permissible in high-income cases)
- Bajzer v. Bajzer, 2012-Ohio-252 (9th Dist. 2012) ( RC 3119.04(B) starting point and discretion in high-income cases)