Salmons v. Eubank, 2017 Ohio 8985

Daniel Salmons and Kimberly Eubank divorced in 2012; their separation agreement (incorporated in the decree) provided for zero child support based on shared factors (parenting time, contributions to expenses, and each party’s percentage of combined income).
In Sept. 2013, Eubank moved to modify child support, alleging Salmons’s income had substantially increased.
A magistrate applied the child support guidelines, calculated $1,021/month, and recommended modification to $750/month as a fair amount.
Salmons objected; the trial court reviewed and concluded that because the prior order deviated to zero, Eubank had to show a change in circumstances not contemplated when they agreed to the deviation, not merely a >10% change.
The trial court found both parties’ finances had improved and that the parties’ agreed percentage-of-income relationship had not meaningfully changed; it sustained one objection and denied modification. Eubank appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eubank)	Defendant's Argument (Salmons)	Held
Whether movant showed a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of a prior deviation to zero support	Salmons’s income rose ~$20,000 since decree; this increase was not contemplated and justifies modifying support	The parties contemplated the income relationship; because they deviated to zero, movant must show an unforeseen change in circumstances beyond a mere income increase	Court held Eubank failed to show an unforeseen change in circumstances; modification denied

Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (general standard: child support decisions are discretionary)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)