Neu v. Neu
2013 Ohio 221
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Divorce between Sharon Neu and James Neu granted; two minor children, plus an emancipated adopted child; original child support set at $534.53/month in 2008 separation agreement.
- Sharon sought modification of child support and non-covered healthcare expenses in 2012; a contempt motion regarding medical expenses was joined.
- Hearing in June 2012 addressed income for purposes of modification; court modified support to $901.98/month (Feb–May 2012) and then $609.68/month thereafter.
- James operates All Star Athletic Fields, LLC, reporting losses in 2009–2011; he claimed Section 179 deduction in 2011.
- Trial court found All Star’s losses were not to be included as James’s income for child support and suggested depreciation-driven losses were manipulated; income from General Dynamics used for calculation.
- Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding no abuse of discretion in income determination and support calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether All Star losses must be included in James's income for child support | Neu argues losses should be included to increase income | Neu argues losses should be deductible; exclude from income | No abuse; losses not included; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (abuse of discretion standard for modification of child support)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Houts v. Houts, 99 Ohio App.3d 701 (1995) (income for child support not necessarily taxable income)
- Foster v. Foster, 150 Ohio App.3d 298 (2002) (deduction of ordinary and necessary expenses for self-employed)
- In re K.P., 2012-Ohio-1094 (2d Dist.) (requires independent evidence beyond tax returns for deductions)
- Cronin v. Cronin, 2012-Ohio-5592 (11th Dist.) (departure from tax return deductions must be supported)
- Janecek v. Marshall, 2011-Ohio-2994 (11th Dist.) (require receipts for Section 179 depreciation)
- Huelskamp v. Huelskamp, 2009-Ohio-6864 (3d Dist.) (court may disallow depreciation if not supported)
- In re Sullivan, 2006-Ohio-3206 (11th Dist.) (depreciation evidence required)
- In re Harris, 2006-Ohio-3649 (2d Dist.) (concealment of income from tax returns is credibility matter)
- Offenberg v. Offenberg, 2003-Ohio-269 (8th Dist.) (tax return figures scrutinized for child support)