Wuscher v. Wuscher, 2015 Ohio 5377

Parties divorced in 2010 after 11 years; divorce decree set spousal support at $5,000/month until May 2012 and child support at $1,095/month; court reserved jurisdiction to modify spousal support amount (not duration).
Wife (Susan) moved to modify both spousal and child support; magistrate initially recommended increases, trial court first denied modification; this Court reversed and remanded in Wuscher I for proper income consideration.
On remand the parties waived additional evidence; court relied on the 2012 hearing record showing Husband (Mark) had base pay plus allowances/bonuses producing a 2011 W-2 of $681,784, while Wife’s income fell from ~$60,000 to a part-time ~$3,000/month contract.
Magistrate (and trial court) found a substantial change in circumstances, increased spousal support to $7,750/month (effective Aug 1, 2011), and set child support at $3,336.92/month (effective Aug 1, 2012) after using guideline worksheets and considering income above $150,000.
Husband objected arguing (1) trial court should impute higher income to wife for voluntary underemployment, (2) cost-of-living differences (Singapore v. Akron) should offset his income, (3) worksheet issues and that the increased child support was unjustified.
Court of Appeals affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion on spousal-support modification, complied with Marker on worksheets, and reasonably exercised its discretion under R.C. 3119.04(B) for child support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wuscher)	Defendant's Argument (Wuscher)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion increasing spousal support	No substantial change in circumstances; court should impute income to wife; cost-of-living in Singapore reduces his disposable income	Husband’s income rose materially; wife’s reduced hours were reasonable given childcare and job conditions	Affirmed — substantial, material income change existed; imputation and COL arguments insufficient to show abuse of discretion
Whether court complied with Marker by completing child support worksheet	Trial court failed to include statutory worksheet in final journal entry	Magistrate completed worksheet and attached it to her decision, which was adopted and part of the record	Affirmed — worksheet attached to magistrate’s decision made part of record, satisfying Marker
Whether child support modification was proper under R.C. 3119.04(B) for combined income > $150,000	Trial court did not perform proper case-by-case review; wife failed to prove child’s needs or insufficiency of prior order	Court considered competing testimony about standard of living and needs; increased child support to reflect standard child would have enjoyed	Affirmed — trial court performed case-by-case analysis and reasonably set support above $150,000 baseline; no abuse of discretion

Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (2009) (modification of spousal support requires reserved jurisdiction, a substantial change in circumstances not contemplated at decree, and consideration of R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) factors)
Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (1992) (trial court must complete and make part of the record a child support guideline worksheet)
Wolfe v. Wolfe, 46 Ohio St.2d 399 (1976) (definition of "substantial" as drastic, material, or significant in support-modification context)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (standard of review for child support modification is abuse of discretion)