Wallace v. Wallace
195 Ohio App. 3d 314
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Husband LaKumba Wallace and Wife Kecia Wallace divorced in August 2007; Wife was designated custodial parent.
- Original child-support worksheet set Father’s obligation at $258.68 monthly, but the decree reflected a $400 monthly payment for child-care costs.
- October 2007 agreed-entry allowed the parties to handle child-support matters independently, with roughly 50-50 parenting time thereafter and Father continuing $400 monthly for child-care.
- November 5, 2009, Father sought reinstitution of visitation after a Civil Protection Order; he also stopped paying the $400 monthly child-care amount.
- January 5, 2010, CSEA moved to set support; March-April 2010 hearing occurred with both sides testifying; Father had new counsel, Mother appeared pro se.
- August 17, 2010, the magistrate’s decision was adopted by the trial court; Father objected, arguing the magistrate relied on outside-record information and unsupported findings; the trial court overruled objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent investigation into income | Wallace contends the magistrate violated conduct rules by researching other cases to obtain income data. | Wallace argues the court impermissibly relied on information outside the record to fix support. | Trial court abused discretion; reverse for this issue. |
| Imputing income without proper factors | Wallace asserts income was imputed without following statutory criteria (R.C. 3119.01(C)(11)(a)). | Wallace contends imputation aligns with earning history and local availability of work. | Imputation unsupported by proper factors; remand required. |
| Support findings not supported by record | Wallace claims findings (unemployed, never earned less than $30,000, assault) are not supported by the record. | Wallace challenges the reliability of the magistrate's findings as inconsistent with the evidence. | Findings not supported by competent evidence; remand for correct findings. |
| Continuance and information adequacy | Wallace argues denial of continuance prevented discovery of income information. | Wallace asserts the proceeding proceeded with insufficient documentary proof of income. | Issues moot on remand; not dispositive after reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Cloyd, 9th Dist. No. 24150, 2008-Ohio-5232 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. 2008) (applies abuse-of-discretion standard in child-support matters)
- Tabatabai v. Tabatabai, 2009-Ohio-3139 (Ohio 9th Dist. 2009) (analyzes appellate review of trial court actions in family matters)
- Knouff v. Walsh-Stewart, 2010-Ohio-4063 (Ohio 9th Dist. 2010) (reiterates that trial court error must be based on actions of the court, not magistrate findings)
- In re J.C., 2010-Ohio-637 (Ohio 9th Dist. 2010) (reverses when trial court relies on outside-record considerations in custody cases)
- Bentley v. Rojas, 2010-Ohio-6243 (Ohio 9th Dist. 2010) (reverses imputation of income without sufficient vocational evidence)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007-Ohio-2202) (recognizes standard for reviewing factual findings in civil matters)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (syllabus: fundamental standard for evidence sufficiency in civil judgments)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review in support determinations)