In re K.P
2012 Ohio 1094
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Poling appeals a juvenile court child-support order.
- Court included wife’s Ace income and $18,200 guaranteed payments in Poling’s gross income.
- Poling argued that Ace income and guaranteed payments should be excluded or not counted as his income.
- Court rejected Poling’s challenges, crediting the relationship between the businesses and Poling’s lack of substantiation.
- Court also rejected reductions for vehicle and telephone expenses claimed for the roofing business due to lack of substantiation.
- Court ultimately affirmed the child-support order after weighing credibility and evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly included Ace income in gross income | Poling: Ace income should be excluded as wife’s income | Court: Ace income is Poling’s because of business intertwinement and lack of clear evidence it is solely wife’s | No abuse; Ace income properly included. |
| Whether the court properly denied deduction of business expenses (vehicle and phone) from gross income | Poling: vehicle and phone expenses should be deducted | Court: expenses not substantiated; not deductible from gross income | No abuse; expenses properly not deducted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. Foster, 150 Ohio App.3d 298 (12th Dist. 2002) (income for child support may differ from tax income; need documentation)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (1993) (abuse of discretion standard; credibility findings favored)
- In re Harris, 168 Ohio App.3d 1 (2d Dist. 2006) (court may consider noncash or indirect income; avoid manipulation of numbers)