2021 Ohio 274
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Donald and Susana Lykins divorced in 2017; two minor children. Earlier appeal led to a remand and amendment of the child support order.
- Donald owns multiple residential rental properties; the central dispute concerned imputation of self‑employment income from that rental business.
- Donald sought an administrative CSEA review that recommended lowering his child support because the CSEA worksheet imputed no rental income; Susana objected and sought attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51 and R.C. 3105.73.
- At a two‑day evidentiary hearing, Donald produced voluminous but informal records (cash receipts, a handwritten ledger, a self‑prepared spreadsheet); he claimed the business operated at a loss and paid many contractors in cash.
- The domestic relations court found Donald’s cash‑ledger and testimony insufficiently credible, concluded net self‑employment income was about $32,000, reduced child support modestly (≈13% lower), denied reduction of spousal support, and awarded Susana attorney fees but based the fee amount remandable.
- On appeal the appellate court affirmed findings on income, credibility, denial of spousal‑support reduction, and the propriety of sanctions; but it vacated the attorney‑fee amount and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Susana's Argument | Donald's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Donald engaged in "frivolous conduct" justifying sanctions/attorney fees | Donald repeatedly relitigated issues, requested improper administrative review, prolonged proceedings, and advanced unsupported factual claims — sanctions warranted | His challenges had merit; not frivolous; award inequitable | Court: conduct met R.C.2323.51 definition; R.C.3105.73 award equitable in principle; award affirmed in part (liability) but amount remanded |
| Whether fee award procedure and amount were proven | Billing records support award; court may rely on submitted invoices | No supporting affidavit introduced at trial; Donald had no chance to cross‑examine fee witness; procedure deficient | Insufficient evidence of reasonableness; remand for evidentiary hearing on fees (Donald may contest) |
| Proper calculation of self‑employment/net income from rentals (cash ledger credibility) | Handwritten ledger, receipts, and testimony show substantial cash expenses and business loss | Many entries unverifiable; lack of receipts/witnesses; records inconsistent | Court did not abuse discretion; ledger not credible for many claimed expenses; imputed ~$32,000 net income |
| Exclusion/admission of partial deposition transcript | Excerpt was admissible under Civ.R.32 for impeachment | Exhibit not authenticated; objection preserved; not used to impeach during proper phase | Exclusion was appropriate and, if erroneous, harmless — no prejudice shown |
| Exclusion of Donald's expert report and testimony | Expert (CPA) should have been allowed to testify; report admissible | Report not a detailed pretrial disclosure; court excluded untimely expert evidence | Exclusion rested on pretrial noncompliance; Donald had agreed to exclude experts — no abuse of discretion |
| Request to reduce/eliminate spousal support based on changed finances | Susana earns more, has larger retirement/checking balances; supports reduction | Donald failed to show inability to pay; his finances improved; losses tied to investment choices (Bitcoin) | Court did not abuse discretion in denying reduction or elimination of spousal support |
| Validity/authority of CSEA administrative review and recommendation | CSEA recommendation to lower support should be adopted | CSEA lacked authority for early review; recommendation ignored self‑employment income | Court correctly found CSEA lacked legal authority for the early adjustment and that the recommendation omitted Donald’s rental income |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (standard that domestic relations trial courts have broad discretion on child support)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Climaco, Seminatore, Delligatti & Hollenbaugh v. Carter, 100 Ohio App.3d 313 (10th Dist. 1995) (court must have some evidence to support attorney‑fee awards)