Roubanes v. Roubanes
2013 Ohio 5778
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Barbara Roubanes (appellant) and Matthew Roubanes divorced in 2009; two children were involved. Final decree required Barbara to pay substantial child support including a $554/month component to liquidate arrearages. Parties had previously stipulated incomes of $75,000 (Barbara) and $40,000 (Matthew).
- Barbara moved in August 2012 to modify child support. A February 2013 hearing occurred; arrears then totaled $28,440.93.
- The trial court found both parties had changed incomes: it calculated Barbara’s 2012 income at $40,439.82 and Matthew’s 2012 gross at $40,921.00 but, after deductions from his tax returns, concluded his income was $17,189.00.
- Trial court ordered Barbara to pay $308.98 per child per month (plus processing) and to continue liquidating arrearages by adding 20% to the monthly obligation (total $756.39/month).
- Barbara appealed, arguing the court improperly allowed Matthew to claim large tax-return deductions (without receipts or witness support) while disallowing her claimed business expense deductions that were supported by witness testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly accepted father’s tax-return deductions without supporting documentation | Father’s $23,732 deductions should be disallowed for child support because there were no receipts or witnesses; gross income should include money available for support | Trial court relied on tax returns and father’s testimony referencing multiple income sources | Court held trial court abused discretion: it erred by relying solely on father’s tax returns and deductions without supporting financial data; remand to recalculate father’s income |
| Whether trial court erred by not deducting mother’s claimed business expenses (CAbi consultant) | Barbara presented witness testimony that consultants incur ~$2,500 plus travel/shipping expenses twice yearly and thus should be able to deduct legitimate business expenses | Trial court noted lack of receipts/expense vouchers and Barbara’s own testimony that she would not present business deductions | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion in denying deductions because Barbara failed to present documentation or testify to her specific expenses |
| Proper standard for treating tax-return deductions and depreciation in child-support calculations | N/A (argument framed by parties) | N/A | Court reaffirmed that tax returns are a starting point but noncash items and unsupported deductions may be excluded under R.C. 3119.01(C)(9); depreciation and noncash items generally not allowed unless actual cash outlays are shown |
| Remedy on appeal | Barbara sought recalculation of support excluding father’s unsupported deductions | Matthew argued trial court's calculation should stand | Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of child support consistent with ruling on father’s income |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (standard of review for child support matters)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (child support review under abuse-of-discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Houts v. Houts, 99 Ohio App.3d 701 (tax returns are a starting point, not sole factor)
- Foster v. Foster, 150 Ohio App.3d 298 (self-generated income and potential cash flow included in gross income)
- Kamm v. Kamm, 67 Ohio St.3d 174 (recognizing deduction of legitimate business cash expenditures for self-employed parents)