Lineback v. Lineback
2017 Ohio 5673
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Husband and Wife divorced in 2013; divorce decree required Wife to pay Husband $1,230/month spousal support.
- At divorce time Wife earned about $36,948/year from investment interest and dividends funded by a large inheritance invested largely in long-term CDs at ~5%.
- After CD maturities, Wife moved funds into a conservative Vanguard portfolio that yielded lower annual income (~$20,739/year).
- Wife moved in March 2016 to modify spousal support based on decreased investment income; magistrate reduced support to $535.30/month after a hearing.
- Husband filed objections one day late to the magistrate’s decision and appealed, arguing the income reduction was voluntary, evidentiary errors, lack of findings, and judicial bias.
- Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; appellate court affirmed, finding Husband’s objections untimely and, on the merits, Wife’s conservative investment choice reasonable and not a voluntary income reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of objections under Civ.R. 53 | N/A (Wife sought modification and proceeded under magistrate) | Husband argued objections should be considered; Civ.R. 6(E) extends filing time | Objections filed one day late; Civ.R. 6(E) does not extend objections time per Duganitz; untimely objections preclude appellate review |
| Whether Wife voluntarily reduced income | Wife argued decrease resulted from market conditions and conservative, reasonable investment strategy | Husband contended Wife voluntarily chose lower-yield investments and could earn much higher returns | Court found record supports that Wife’s investment strategy was conservative and not a voluntary reduction of income; modification permissible for changed circumstances |
| Admission of exhibits / evidentiary rulings | Exhibits supported Wife’s income evidence and expert testimony on reasonableness of investments | Husband challenged admission and claimed res judicata errors | Husband failed to timely object to magistrate’s factual findings; thus barred on appeal; merits would not have changed outcome |
| Request for findings of fact & due process / judicial bias claims | Wife relied on magistrate’s findings and process | Husband alleged court refused to issue findings, showed bias, and denied due process (including travel burden) | Claims rejected: procedural default from untimely objections; pro se status does not excuse compliance; no reversible error shown on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 92 Ohio St.3d 556 (2001) (Civ.R. 6(E) does not extend the time to file objections to a magistrate's decision)