Rummelhoff v. Rummelhoff
2021 Ohio 4579
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Emily and David Rummelhoff divorced; this is the second appeal after this court remanded child-support computation in Rummelhoff I.
- On remand the trial court recalculated child support, denied David's Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion seeking relief based on Friedenberg, denied Emily’s vexatious-litigant motion, awarded Emily post-decree attorney fees, and refused to reassign the magistrate after alleged ex parte emails.
- David challenged denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion to compel Emily’s mental-health records, arguing Friedenberg required disclosure; the court found Friedenberg was not an intervening decision that altered prior rulings.
- The magistrate deviated downward from guideline support for three reasons: (1) relative financial resources/imputed earning capacity, (2) in-kind contributions (identified as Emily’s health-insurance premiums), and (3) statutory 10% reduction for shared parenting; David appealed those deviations.
- The trial court awarded $2,288 in post-decree attorney fees under R.C. 3105.73(B) without an evidentiary hearing; David also asserted the magistrate should be disqualified for alleged ex parte communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Emily) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief was warranted to revisit denial of compelled mental-health records based on Friedenberg | Friedenberg does not require turning records over to the opposing party in all circumstances; records were considered by investigator | Friedenberg is an intervening decision entitling him to relief and disclosure | Denial affirmed — Friedenberg not an intervening decision and issue was previously decided (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether the court could consider Emily’s motion to declare David a vexatious litigant | Motion was proper to address litigant conduct | Motion is procedurally defective because R.C. 2323.52 applies only to commencing actions, not motions | Consideration and denial affirmed; issue now moot and advisory opinion avoided |
| Whether the trial court correctly computed guideline child support when combined income fell between schedule entries | Use statutory methods and underlying formulas to compute a proportional guideline amount | Computation exceeded remand scope or used values not on schedule | Computation of guideline amount affirmed (court may use R.C. 3119.021 / 3119.05(G)(2)) |
| Whether downward deviations were justified under R.C. 3119.23 (relative resources, in-kind contributions) and 3119.231 (shared parenting) | Deviations supported by relative resources, Emily’s in-kind contributions (insurance), and shared parenting | Deviation improperly based on imputed earning potential and on health-insurance premiums already accounted for on worksheet | Partially reversed: 10% shared-parenting deviation allowed; deviations for imputed earning capacity (relative resources) and for health-insurance premiums were abuses of discretion; remand to revise support |
| Whether attorney-fee award under R.C. 3105.73(B) was proper without hearing and despite separation agreement clause | Award equitable given conduct; separation agreement only covered pre-decree fees | Fees improper without evidentiary hearing; separation agreement bars attorney-fee recovery | Fee award reversed for lack of evidentiary hearing; separation-agreement clause does not bar post-decree award; remand for hearing on fees |
| Whether magistrate should be disqualified for alleged ex parte email communications | Emails were administrative or non-substantive; no prejudice | Ex parte emails to magistrate require reassignment | Denial of reassignment affirmed because record lacks the emails and nothing shows substantive merit-based ex parte contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 514 N.E.2d 1122 (Ohio 1987) (standard of review for Civ.R. 60(B) motions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, 161 Ohio St.3d 98, 161 N.E.3d 546 (Ohio 2020) (physician-patient communications exception in divorce cases)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139, 601 N.E.2d 496 (Ohio 1992) (requirement for findings to support child-support deviation)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (Ohio 1989) (trial-court discretion on child support reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 257 N.E.2d 371 (Ohio 1970) (courts will not issue advisory opinions)
- In re O'Farrell, 155 Ohio St.3d 1263, 121 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio 2017) (ex parte communications with judge warrant removal when substantive)
- Vance v. Roedersheimer, 64 Ohio St.3d 552, 597 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio 1992) (attorney-fee awards for bad faith/conduct; statutory fee authority)