Trombley v. Trombley
2018 Ohio 1880
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Melissa (Mother) and Walter Trombley (Father) divorced in 2007; the divorce incorporated a separation agreement requiring Father to pay $3,000/month in child support (upward deviation from guideline amount of $1,830.92). Father then lived in England and earned $170,000/year; Mother had minimal income.
- In 2015 Father moved to modify child support and health-insurance/unreimbursed medical allocations, arguing a change in circumstances. A magistrate found a substantial change and recalculated guideline support at $1,810.78, then upwardly deviated to $2,400/month.
- Mother objected to the magistrate’s income calculations (averaging her income but not Father’s; deducting local taxes from Father), to the finding of a substantial change beyond the statutory 10% given the prior deviation, to the extent of deviation, and to reallocation of unreimbursed medical expenses.
- The trial court independently reviewed and adopted the magistrate’s decision, overruled Mother’s objections, and entered the modified support and medical allocation. Mother appealed.
- The Ninth District affirmed: Mother forfeited several objections by not specifically raising them to the magistrate; the court found competent, credible evidence supporting a substantial change (Mother’s increased income and Father’s changed personal obligations) and that the deviation and medical-expense allocation were not abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Income calculation and tax deduction | Mother: court erred by averaging her income but not Father’s and by deducting local taxes Father does not pay | Father: magistrate reasonably used a single-year measure for Father (recent base pay and bonus) and averaged Mother’s income due to variation; tax adjustments appropriate based on evidence | Forfeited by Mother on appeal (failure to specifically object to magistrate); Court declined to reach merits |
| 2. Existence of a substantial change of circumstances | Mother: Father failed to prove a change beyond the statutory 10% (and prior deviation) | Father: recalculation produced a >10% change and additional facts (Mother’s income rise; Father’s remarriage and additional children) show a change not contemplated at prior deviation | Court: substantial change proven beyond 10% and not contemplated by prior agreement; modification permitted |
| 3. Extent of upward deviation from guideline amount | Mother: large income disparity and voluntary unemployment of Father's wife justify maintaining prior higher deviation (Father should pay $3,000) | Father: personal and financial changes (supporting second family, loss of dependent exemptions) warrant reducing deviation; recalculated guideline plus allowed upward deviation yields $2,400 | Court: magistrate’s balancing of R.C. 3119.23 factors was supported by competent, credible evidence; $2,400 appropriate (32% above guideline but 20% below prior order) |
| 4. Allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses | Mother: reallocation (Father pays first $267/year then 80%/20% split) is arbitrary and not supported | Father: employer-funded HSA covers six people; allocating 1/3 of $800 HSA to these children yields $267; remaining costs allocated proportional to income (rounded) | Court: allocation rationally linked to HSA funding and parties’ income percentages; not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (presumption of guideline child support; review for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate standard: do not substitute own judgment for trial court)