2016 Ohio 2908
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Anne and Matthew Maddox divorced in 2011; the decree incorporated a separation agreement providing phased spousal support and a shared-parenting plan stating no child support would be paid "at this time," and that child support would be calculated upon termination of spousal support.
- Phase I and II spousal support (higher amounts) ran through Dec. 31, 2013; Phase III reduced spousal support beginning Jan. 1, 2014 and terminated after 24 months.
- Anne moved on Jan. 1, 2014 to set child support and for attorney fees; magistrate held hearings and set child support and awarded $8,000 in attorney fees to Anne.
- Matthew objected and, the day before oral argument on objections, sought to submit newly arisen evidence (his Oct. 2014 termination, severance, actual 2014 bonus, and loss of unvested RSUs), which the trial court denied receipt of at a hearing though it allowed a proffer.
- The trial court nonetheless adopted parts of the magistrate’s decision, calculating Matthew’s income including bonus and RSU values and ordering child support; on appeal Matthew argued (among other claims) the court erred by refusing to admit the new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anne) | Defendant's Argument (Matthew) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must hear additional evidence under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) that arose after the magistrate’s hearing | Trial court did not abuse discretion; rule should be limited to evidence existing at magistrate time; new evidence could be raised later by modification | Rule requires admission of evidence that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced to the magistrate; post- decision job loss and loss of RSUs could not have been produced earlier and are material | Reversed in part: trial court erred by denying a hearing on Matthew’s proffer; if evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced earlier, the court must consider it on objections |
| Whether Anne was barred from seeking child support before spousal-support termination under the shared-parenting plan | Child support could be sought once Phase II ended; the plan’s "at this time" language means no child support at time of entry, not forever | Shared-parenting plan prohibited setting child support until spousal support terminated | Affirmed: shared-parenting plan did not bar Anne from seeking child support after Phase II; plain language allows child support calculation after earlier phase ended |
| Calculation of Matthew’s income (bonuses, RSUs) for child support | (Anne) Trial court correctly included bonus and allocated RSU value in income | (Matthew) New evidence would show reduced income (termination, lost unvested RSUs, actual bonus) that would change calculation | Not decided on merits: rendered moot pending remand for consideration of additional evidence; appellate court did not resolve calculation disputes |
| Award of $8,000 attorney fees to Anne under R.C. 3105.73(B) | (Anne) Fees appropriate | (Matthew) Fees inappropriate given changed circumstances and disputed income | Not decided on merits: remanded because additional evidence could affect fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co., 38 Ohio St.2d 244 (Ohio 1974) (courts must give contractual language its plain meaning when unambiguous)
- Forstner v. Forstner, 68 Ohio App.3d 367 (11th Dist. 1990) (parol evidence admissible to explain ambiguous terms of a separation or parenting agreement)