Shendel v. Graham
2017 Ohio 4236
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Julie Shendel and Garry R. Graham II, never married, share one minor son born in 2010; parties lived in Tennessee, Garry later moved out of state and now lives in Illinois.
- Before the hearing Julie was designated residential parent; Garry was granted long-distance visitation and pays most travel costs.
- Disputes at the juvenile-court hearing: retroactive child support (2011–2016), calculation of Garry’s income (including business deductions, depreciation, and a lump-sum retirement withdrawal), childcare expenses, health insurance and uninsured medical costs, tax exemption allocation, and a requested name change for the child.
- Magistrate issued findings and the trial court largely adopted them; Julie appealed on multiple grounds (18 assignments of error).
- Appellate court reviewed child-support and visitation rulings for abuse of discretion and factual findings for some competent, credible evidence; it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculations and further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shendel) | Defendant's Argument (Graham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of visitation transportation costs | Court shouldn’t force Shendel to pay part because Graham moved away | Graham argued shared cost reasonable given long-distance visitation costs | Affirmed: court may allocate 25% to Shendel; not an abuse of discretion |
| Business expense deductions reducing self-generated income | Graham failed to prove business expenses were "ordinary and necessary" or actually paid in claimed year; court erred reducing income | Graham relied on tax returns showing deductions | Reversed: obligor must prove cash, ordinary and necessary expenses; trial court erred allowing reductions without evidence |
| Inclusion of lump-sum retirement withdrawal as income (2011) | Withdrawal should be included in gross income | Graham: lump-sum was nonrecurring and used to pay debt | Affirmed: lump-sum excluded as nonrecurring under statute; BUT trial court miscalculated gross income elsewhere and must correct |
| 2011 support period (months owed) | Shendel: Graham moved out March 2011 so nine months support owed | Graham disputed move date; no testimony from him | Reversed: trial court relied on counsel statements; record supports Shendel’s testimony—award nine months on remand |
| Year-by-year gross income calculations (2012–2016) | Multiple years miscalculated (income understated, unverified deductions allowed) | Graham relied on tax returns and testimony; some figures supported | Partially reversed: several yearly calculations (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 childcare numbers, 2015 childcare, 2016 childcare and expense averaging) lack competent, credible evidentiary support; court must recalculate with correct evidence and without unproven deductions |
| Childcare expenses inclusion | Shendel provided receipts/statements; trial court excluded or used unexplained lower amounts | Graham contested admissibility/credibility of some exhibits | Mixed: where trial court excluded evidence it was within discretion; several worksheet childcare figures unexplained and are remanded for supported recalculation |
| Health insurance coverage obligation | Court failed to clearly require Graham to provide comprehensive insurance | Graham testified employer coverage exists; court included health premium on worksheet | Affirmed: court did require Graham to provide coverage (while available); not error |
| Allocation of uninsured/unreimbursed medical expenses | Court omitted mandatory allocation of out-of-pocket costs | Statute requires court to allocate co-pay/deductible responsibility | Reversed: must include explicit allocation per R.C. 3119.32 on remand |
| Tax dependency exemption | Court allowed alternating claims without statutory analysis | Shendel: trial court failed to analyze tax-savings and best interest factors; presumptive right belongs to custodial parent | Reversed: trial court failed to apply Singer and R.C. 3119.82; remand for proper analysis |
| Minor’s name change | Shendel sought to change child’s surname to hers | Graham opposed; argued name ties to his family and child’s identity | Affirmed: trial court considered best-interest factors and denied request; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Appleby v. Appleby, 24 Ohio St.3d 39 (Ohio 1986) (trial court has discretion to make visitation orders guided by child’s best interest)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (child-support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (child-support worksheet required for meaningful appellate review)
- Singer v. Dickinson, 63 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio 1992) (noncustodial parent may claim dependency exemption only if it produces net tax savings and furthers child’s best interest)
- Foster v. Foster, 150 Ohio App.3d 298 (Ohio Ct. App.) (2002) (depreciation deductions are not deductible from income for child-support purposes absent proof they represent actual cash expenses in the year claimed)