2019 Ohio 3232
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- James Truckey and Stephanie (Boczar) Truckey divorced in 2013; guideline worksheet set support at $717.72/month but parties’ shared-parenting agreement deviated support to $0.
- Parties later resolved parenting disputes and continued the deviation to $0 by agreed entry in 2014.
- In 2015 Boczar moved to modify child support, alleging a recalculation would be more than a 10% increase over the existing order.
- A magistrate found the worksheet showed a 10% change from $0 but concluded there was not a substantial change of circumstances under R.C. 3119.79(C), recommending denial of modification.
- The trial court overruled Boczar’s objections, denied modification, and Boczar appealed; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 10% worksheet increase from a deviated $0 order automatically satisfies R.C. 3119.79(A) so as to presume a substantial change of circumstances | Boczar: 10% recalculation from $0 statutorily presumes a substantial change of circumstances requiring modification | Trial court/Truckey: Court may consider other evidence; worksheet is just one factor and must still find circumstances not contemplated | Held: A 10% recalculation from a deviated $0 order satisfies R.C. 3119.79(A); court must treat it as a presumed substantial change and then may consider whether deviation under R.C. 3119.22 is warranted |
| Whether parties’ prior voluntary deviation bars modification absent additional ‘not contemplated’ circumstances | Boczar: Prior agreement does not prevent triggering the 10% statutory presumption | Truckey: Parties’ agreement should limit modifications unless unforeseen circumstances exist | Held: Prior agreement does not negate the 10% test; DePalmo dictates the statutory 10% applies even where prior waiver existed |
| Scope of trial court discretion after 10% presumption is met | Boczar: Court must recalculate per worksheet unless deviation justified | Truckey: Court retains broad discretion to deny modification based on equities | Held: Court must recalculate per worksheet but may deviate under R.C. 3119.22 if supported by findings that calculated amount is unjust/inappropriate and not in child's best interest |
| Standard of review for legal application | Boczar: Legal application reviewed de novo | Truckey: (implicit) defer to trial court discretion | Held: Factual findings reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal application reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (Ohio 1997) (ten-percent recalculation applies even when parties previously agreed to waive support)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (requirements for deviation findings when departing from guideline support)