Morrow v. Becker
138 Ohio St. 3d 11
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Parents Jeffrey Morrow and Sherri Becker disputed child-support modification; trial court recalculated support and considered employer-paid benefits in Morrow’s gross income.
- Magistrate recalculated support slightly lower than existing amount but held change <10%, so no modification; trial court adopted magistrate's decision.
- Morrow appealed, arguing the trial court erred by including employer-provided car, car insurance, and cell phone/service as gross income for child-support calculation.
- Court of appeals affirmed inclusion of the car, insurance, and phone as part of gross income but reversed inclusion of full value of OSU football tickets (held harmless error).
- Ohio Supreme Court granted review, consolidated a certified conflict, and addressed whether employer benefits may be included in gross income when not tied to self-employment or ownership interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morrow) | Defendant's Argument (Becker/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer-paid in-kind benefits (company car, insurance, cell phone, tickets) may be included in gross income for child-support calculation when not from self-employment or ownership | Statute’s reference to "self-generated income" and examples (company cars, free housing, reimbursed meals) limits such in-kind inclusions to self-employment/proprietorship/closely held ownership contexts | "Gross income" statutory definition is broad; employer-provided benefits substitute for cash the parent would otherwise need, effectively increasing disposable income and should be included | The court held such employer-paid benefits may be included in gross income even when not tied to self-employment or ownership interests; certified question answered in the negative |
| Whether inclusion of employer-provided football tickets was proper | Tickets not received primarily for personal use; thus should not be fully included | Trial court included them; court of appeals found full inclusion erroneous but harmless | Supreme Court agreed tickets likely do not fully accrue to employee but deemed any error harmless given small amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 1997) (child-support matters reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Steiner v. Custer, 137 Ohio St. 448 (Ohio 1940) (abuse-of-discretion principle authority)
- Merkel v. Merkel, 51 Ohio App.3d 110 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (employer-provided free housing is a significant benefit and may be included in income)