Schilling v. Ball, 2017 Ohio 5511

Parties entered shared-parenting agreements in 2008 and modified them in 2011; both agreements included an agreed deviation of child support to zero despite worksheet amounts showing a positive obligation.
In 2011 the parenting time changed so the child primarily lived with Ball; Schilling remained ordered at zero support by agreement because each maintained separate residences.
In July 2015 Ball moved to modify child support, asserting changed circumstances; the trial court recalculated support and determined Schilling’s worksheet obligation was $356.58/month.
At the May 2016 hearing Schilling testified he had been living with his parents for about three years and did not have an independent residence at that time.
The trial court ordered Schilling to pay $356.58/month retroactive to July 9, 2015; Schilling appealed, arguing the court failed to find a "substantial change of circumstances not contemplated" as required by R.C. 3119.79(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by modifying a prior agreed zero-support order without expressly finding a substantial change of circumstances not contemplated at the time of the last order	Schilling: the court was required under R.C. 3119.79(C) to find an unanticipated substantial change beyond any worksheet deviation before modifying	Ball: a recalculation showing more than a 10% increase from the existing order triggers the statutory presumption of a substantial change under R.C. 3119.79(A)	Affirmed: a move from zero to $356.58 exceeds 10%, satisfying R.C. 3119.79(A); no additional finding beyond the 10% test was required

DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (Ohio 1997) (holds that a >10% difference between existing and recalculated child support can alone justify modification even when prior agreement deviated support to zero)
Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (articulates standards for modification and considerations under child support framework)