McNabb v. McNabb
2013 Ohio 2158
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- 2009 divorce; decree incorporated a shared parenting plan addressing parenting time, child support, and health insurance.
- Parties agreed on income for child-support calculations and a 21% deviation due to increased parenting time; they excluded Mother’s trust benefits from income and funded a $200/month 529 plan with Father’s support.
- 2010–2011 parenting schedule diverged from the plan; Father’s income dropped from about $231,000 to $176,000.
- 2011 Father filed to modify the plan to reflect more time with the child and reduced income; Mother also sought modification of evenings during school week.
- 2012 magistrate granted Father’s modification requests, reduced monthly child support from $1,624.98 to $1,325.84, used an offset to compute deviation, and sua sponte changed uninsured medical expense allocation; court adopted magistrate’s decision; Father appeals and Mother cross-appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars including Mother's trust benefits as income. | McNabb argues estoppel precludes relitigating income inclusion. | McNabb argues estoppel should apply due to prior adjudication. | Collateral estoppel does not bar consideration; remand for income inclusion. |
| Whether deviation was properly calculated by offset versus statutory factors. | McNabb contends offsetting is improper; Pauly dictates deviation by statutory factors. | McNabb argues offset method is permissible as guide post-deviation. | Offset method permissible; not error to use as guide. |
| Whether sua sponte modification of uninsured medical expenses was proper. | McNabb did not raise this issue; claim it was improper sua sponte. | Mother contends court may modify medical expenses under continuing jurisdiction. | Court empowered to modify; not reversible error. |
| Whether Mother’s obligation to deposit $200/month into a 529 plan should be eliminated after child-support reduction. | McNabb argues obligation should be eliminated given reduced support. | Mother contends obligation remained and evidence insufficient to terminate. | Obligation not eliminated; cross-assignments overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (1997 Ohio) (deviation in shared parenting follows statutory factors; offset not mandated)
- Hubin v. Hubin, 92 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001 Ohio) (offsets in shared parenting not per se prohibited; context matters)
- Flege v. Flege, 2004-Ohio-1929 (2004 Ohio) (continuing jurisdiction for support matters not barred by res judicata; cautious application)
- Kiehborth v. Kiehborth, 2006-Ohio-5529 (2006 Ohio) (strict caution in applying res judicata to support modifications)
- Petralia v. Petralia, 2003-Ohio-3867 (2003 Ohio) (Petralia distinguished; not controlling against continuing jurisdiction)
- In re Gilbraith v. Hixson, 32 Ohio St.3d 127 (1987 Ohio) (consent judgments have enforceability comparable to litigated judgments)
- MacDonald v. MacDonald, 2011-Ohio-5389 (2011 Ohio) (split-parenting worksheet can guide deviation; not forbidden)