2018 Ohio 3243
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Sean Short and Michelle Richardson (formerly Short) divorced in 2011; they have two children and a shared-parenting arrangement with Richardson as residential parent.
- The 2011 divorce decree included a child support worksheet showing Short would owe $597.75/month but the court found a deviation and ordered no child support, with parents splitting expenses.
- Richardson filed a December 2015 motion to modify child support, alleging Short failed to reimburse expenses and there was a change in circumstances. Short filed a competing motion seeking more parenting time.
- At an October 2017 hearing, Richardson submitted a child support worksheet showing Short’s annual income ≈ $42,000 and her income ≈ $66,000 (worksheet indicated Short would owe $559.42/month).
- The trial court’s October 2017 entry continued the parties’ equal split of expenses, found Short earned less than Richardson, adopted a one-week-on/one-week-off schedule, and dismissed other pending motions without attaching or adopting a child support worksheet or making deviation findings.
- Richardson appealed, arguing the trial court failed to (1) apply the R.C. 3119.79 ten-percent recalculation test and (2) make the statutory findings required to deviate from the guideline amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Richardson) | Defendant's Argument (Short) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to recalculate child support under R.C. 3119.79 and apply the ten-percent test on a motion to modify | Court must recalculate support using the worksheet; a >10% difference constitutes a substantial change requiring modification | Court tacitly relied on shared expenses and near-equal parenting time; argues remand is unnecessary because outcome is clear | Held for Richardson: trial court failed to show it recalculated; remand required for recalculation and determination whether >10% change exists |
| Whether the trial court must complete or adopt a child support worksheet when modifying support | Trial court must complete or adopt a worksheet and include it in the record to permit meaningful review | Argues omission was technical and facts render worksheet redundant | Held for Richardson: failure to attach or adopt a worksheet requires remand; worksheet or adoption is mandatory |
| Whether the court must enter statutory findings when deviating from guideline amount per R.C. 3119.22 | If court deviates from worksheet amount, it must journal the calculated amount and factual findings that deviation is justifiable and in child's best interest | Argues facts (income disparity, equal parenting time, expense-splitting) justify no support and render detailed findings unnecessary | Held for Richardson: trial court did not make the required R.C. 3119.22 findings; strict compliance required; remand ordered |
| Whether the judgment was final and appealable | Richardson contends the order resolved her modification motion and is appealable | Short contends order was not final because it didn’t specify a child support amount or Civ.R. 54(B) language | Held: order was final/appealable because the court ruled on pending motions and dismissed others; appellate jurisdiction exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (a court must journal deviation findings and include a completed child support worksheet to allow meaningful appellate review)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 1997) (child support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (standard for appellate review of domestic-relations matters)
- DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (Ohio 1997) (strict compliance required for journaled findings when deviating from guideline support)
- Long v. Long, 162 Ohio App.3d 422 (Ohio App. 2005) (trial court must complete a worksheet or clearly adopt a party’s worksheet when deciding a child-support modification)