2019 Ohio 2673
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Griffin (Husband) and Amanda McFarland (Wife) divorced after separating in June 2016; one child of the marriage (born ~2008).
- Trial court granted Wife temporary spousal support ($473/month) and later ordered Husband to pay the mortgage starting May 2017.
- Wife filed contempt motions: one for Husband’s nonpayment of spousal support, another for nonpayment of the mortgage (which led to foreclosure action).
- At final hearing the trial court denied contempt, designated Husband residential parent, and ordered Wife to pay child support ($203.79/month) after imputing income to her.
- Trial court found Wife voluntarily underemployed and imputed $28,192/year based on 36 hours/week at $15.06/hour.
- Trial court declined to hold Husband in contempt due to his financial difficulties, retained jurisdiction over arrearages, and ordered the marital home sold with net proceeds split.
Issues
| Issue | McFarland (Wife) Argument | Griffin (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly imputed income to Wife for child support | Court erred by imputing income; she was not voluntarily underemployed and earned only ~$16k–$20k | Wife chose part-time work for childcare, can work full-time and has opportunity to increase hours | Court affirmed imputation; trial court found voluntary underemployment and reasonably imputed $28,192/year based on testimony and factors in R.C. 3119.01(C)(17)(a) |
| Whether Husband should be held in contempt for not paying temporary spousal support | Husband knowingly failed to pay despite having funds; contempt is warranted | Husband lacked disposable income; funds cited were for business expenses and he struggled financially | Court affirmed refusal to hold contempt now; evidence showed inability to pay and court reserved enforcement/jurisdiction for future nonpayment |
| Whether Husband should be held in contempt for failing to pay the mortgage as ordered | Husband admitted nonpayment and court should find contempt | Husband could not afford mortgage without Wife’s income; attempted sale; foreclosure initiated | Court affirmed refusal to enter contempt; ordered sale of home and split net proceeds to resolve nonpayment |
| Discretion of trial court in contempt and support determinations | Trial court abused discretion in several findings | Trial court applied discretion based on evidence of finances and employment | Appellate court found no abuse of discretion on any assignment of error |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (standards for imputing income and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)