2018 Ohio 2894
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Parties: Julie Shendel (residential parent) and Garry Graham (nonresident parent) share one minor child; dispute concerns child support and allocation of healthcare/unreimbursed medical expenses.
- Procedural posture: This appeal follows a remand from this court after an earlier decision identified errors in the trial court’s child-support calculations and directed further findings; trial court reissued computations without new evidence/hearing.
- Core contested items: Garry’s gross income for calendar years 2011–2016 (including one‑time asset sales, retirement distributions, W‑2/employment income, Schedule E income), and Julie’s childcare expense amounts for 2013–2016.
- Statutory framework: Child‑support gross income defined broadly by R.C. 3119.01(C)(7); however, R.C. 3119.01(C)(7)(e)/(8) excludes nonrecurring/unsustainable income (one‑time gains) from gross income for child‑support purposes; R.C. 3119.32 requires allocation of uninsured/unreimbursed medical expenses.
- Trial-court findings on remand: The court kept exclusion of certain one‑time gains, corrected childcare calculations for some years, but again used federal adjusted income rather than employment wages for 2014 (resulting in undercounting), and adopted a split (58% father / 42% mother) for extraordinary medical expenses while adding an “unauthorized provider” rule assigning responsibility to the party who chose an out‑of‑network provider unless agreed otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shendel) | Defendant's Argument (Graham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one‑time sales (2011 business equipment) must be included in gross income | These proceeds were part of gross receipts and the court understated Garry’s income by treating depreciation/cost basis deductions as reducing gross income | The sales were one‑time, nonrecurring gains and not part of regular gross income | Court: Sales were nonrecurring; exclusion appropriate — no reversible error. |
| Whether 2012 land sale proceeds must be included | Trial court omitted $3,256 sale proceeds from gross income | Sale was one‑time and not in ordinary business; not recurring income | Court: Exclusion appropriate; no reversible error. |
| Whether 2013 pension/annuity distribution ($1,829) must be included | Distribution should be included in 2013 gross income | Distribution was a one‑time withdrawal used to pay debt; not recurring | Court: Exclusion proper under nonrecurring income rule; no reversible error. |
| Whether 2013 childcare expenses were understated | Trial court used $7,515 but Julie paid $7,760; recalculation needed | No objection; trial court’s remand calculation matched exhibit entries | Court: On remand, trial court’s detailed $7,720 figure matched evidence; no reversible error. |
| Whether 2014 gross income was understated by using federal adjusted gross income instead of W‑2 wages | Garry’s Missouri tax shows employment wages of $58,668; trial court used $46,053 (AGI), understating income by $12,615 | Trial court relied on adjusted gross income and unverified business deductions | Court: Using AGI was error; wages ($58,668) plus Schedule E ($12,169) = $70,837 should be used. Assignment of error sustained. |
| Whether 2014 childcare expenses were understated | Julie paid $8,505 in 2014; court used a lower amount | Court on remand detailed and used $8,175 based on proofs | Court: Remand calculation supported by evidence; no reversible error. |
| Whether 2015 annuity/pension ($174) must be included | Small pension amount should be in gross income | No evidence it was recurring; exclusion appropriate | Court: Exclusion proper; no reversible error. |
| Whether 2015 childcare total omitted $330 fee (math error) | Court failed to include $330 Willo‑Christian fee — understates expense | Implicit: clerical addition reflected court’s totals | Court: Arithmetic error found; assignment sustained. |
| Whether 2016 private‑school tuition should be treated as childcare | Julie treated private kindergarten tuition as childcare cost | Father objects; private school tuition not equivalent to daycare; no agreement to pay private school | Court: Private school tuition is not a daycare equivalent; exclusion appropriate; no reversible error. |
| Whether trial court properly allocated uninsured/unreimbursed medical expenses and handled out‑of‑network providers | Court previously failed to allocate; on remand ordered 58% father / 42% mother and that party choosing an unauthorized provider pay unreimbursed costs unless agreed otherwise | Father argues parties should share per percentages; court may impose conditions tied to insurance network rules | Court: Allocation and ‘‘unauthorized provider’’ rule within discretion; statutory allocation requirement satisfied; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (deference to trial court findings and credibility determinations)
- Baus v. Baus, 72 Ohio App.3d 781, 596 N.E.2d 509 (9th Dist. 1991) (one‑time sale proceeds should not reduce gross income used for child support)
- In re Sullivan, 167 Ohio App.3d 458, 855 N.E.2d 554 (11th Dist. 2006) (depreciation and noncash tax deductions excluded from child‑support gross income)