Mossing-Landers v. Landers
2016 Ohio 7625
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Parties divorced in June 2015; final decree fixed child support using an $85,000 imputed income for father (Michael) and $50,000 for mother (Natalee) and listed $9,020 in annual childcare expenses. No appeal was taken from the decree.
- After the decree, Michael moved back to Ohio and sought modification of child support, claiming reduced actual income from part-time golf and retail jobs and seeking lower support; he was receiving USAF retirement and VA disability benefits.
- A magistrate reduction award omitted Michael’s VA disability from gross income and credited mother with $3,752 in annual childcare expenses, producing a lower support obligation.
- The trial court partially sustained mother’s objections: it restored the original (higher) support amount, finding no substantial change in circumstances and stating Michael’s income was essentially unchanged (court did not expressly decide whether VA disability must be included).
- On appeal, the court reviewed (1) whether VA disability payments were properly excluded from gross income for child-support calculation, and (2) whether the trial court erred in using $9,020 for childcare instead of the amount supported at the modification hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Natalee) | Defendant's Argument (Landers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VA disability payments may be excluded from gross income for child-support calculation under R.C. 3119.01(C)(7)(b) | VA disability is includable unless it falls within the statutory exclusion; mother argued inclusion or that court reasonably treated income as unchanged | Michael argued the magistrate correctly excluded his $1,534.32/mo VA disability from gross income | Court: No error in trial court’s result — magistrate erred to exclude but trial court did not need to resolve exclusion because overall imputed income was essentially unchanged; father failed to prove the statutory exclusion applied. |
| Whether $9,020 in childcare expenses was supported for inclusion on the child-support worksheet | Mother relied on the decree figure and testimony claiming ~$9,000 annual childcare | Father argued documentary evidence showed only $3,302.50 (or at most $3,752 after magistrate extrapolation); receipts were limited | Court: Trial court abused its discretion by using $9,020; remanded to use $3,752 (the amount supported by hearing evidence) and to recalculate support (no new hearing required on childcare). |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (standard of appellate review for child-support decisions is abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (defines abuse of discretion as decisions lacking reasonable basis or sound reasoning)
- DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (Ohio 1997) (10% guideline deviation is the statutory test for modification; trial court is child’s "watchdog" on support)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (any deviation from guidelines requires findings and completion of child-support worksheet)
- Baire v. Baire, 102 Ohio App.3d 50 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (discusses limits on modifying agreed deviations where contemplated at original order)