A.S. v. J.W.
Court of Appeals No. L-17-1099
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Decided: March 16, 2018
[Cite as A.S. v. J.W., 2018-Ohio-1001.]
JENSEN, J.
v.
J.W. Appellant
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: March 16, 2018
* * * * *
Ron L. Rimelspach, for appellee.
Jeffrey P. Nunnari and Rose M. Mock, for appellant.
* * * * *
JENSEN, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, J.W. (“father”), appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, directing him to pay appellee, A.S. (“mother”), child support in the amount of $4,372.32 per month beginning in January 2016.
{¶ 2} On September 2, 2015, mother filed a complaint for allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in relation to the parties’ minor child, R.W. In the complaint, mother sought custody of R.W. with parenting time for father, an order directing father to pay for birthing expenses and R.W.’s medical expenses, and an award of child support. Approximately ten months later, the parties entered into a shared parenting plan that addressed the noneconomic issues raised in the complaint. Thereafter, on August 11, 2016, the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate on the economic issues, which included various expenses incurred by mother before and during the birth, as well as child support.
{¶ 3} At the hearing, mother and father each testified and introduced a number of exhibits into evidence. Relevant here, the testimony at the hearing revealed the relative income of the parties, with mother earning $122,619.44 in 2013, $132,147.36 in 2014, and $131,506.00 in 2015. Mother expected to earn $140,000 in 2016. Father earned commissions of $85,280.00 in 2013, $246,332.00 in 2014, and $212,898.00 in 2015, along with a base annual salary of $90,000 during that time period. Father testified that he received commission payments totaling approximately $338,000 by the date of the hearing in August 2016, bringing his year-to-date income to $416,509.52. Father stated that he would earn a base salary of $94,000 in 2016, and his commissions for the year were projected to be $368,794.00. Father testified that his commissions for 2016 were the product of several years of work and were not likely to recur.
{¶ 5} On September 13, 2016, the magistrate issued her decision in which she adopted the parties’ shared parenting plan, denied mother’s request for the reallocation of pre-birth expenses and non-birth expenses, and ordered father to pay mother half of the birthing expenses. As to child support, the magistrate ordered father to pay child support in the amount of $2,984.70 per month from September 2, 2015, through the end of 2015. The magistrate then ordered that father pay child support in the amount of $4,372.32 per month beginning in January 2016.
{¶ 6} The increase in child support reflected father’s increase in earnings for 2016. According to the child support computation worksheet that was referenced in the magistrate’s decision and marked as Joint Exhibit III, the magistrate averaged father’s 2014, 2015, and 2016 commissions, and then added the average commission to father’s base salary to arrive at father’s total gross income of $370,008.00. The magistrate then calculated the parties’ combined adjusted gross income, which was $499,807.84. Father’s income represented 72.55 percent of the combined gross income. Finally, the magistrate extrapolated father’s child support obligation utilizing the one-child amount indicated in the basic child support schedule found in
{¶ 7} Six days after the magistrate issued her decision, the trial court conducted an independent review of the magistrate’s findings and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} On appeal, father assigns the following error for our review:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the prejudice of appellant when it calculated appellant’s child support obligation.
II. Analysis
{¶ 9} A trial court is vested with broad discretion in deciding child support matters and will only be reversed upon a finding that the trial court abused its discretion. Bigelow v. Bigelow, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1018, 2014-Ohio-994, ¶ 18, citing Dunbar v. Dunbar, 68 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 627 N.E.2d 532 (1994). An abuse of discretion connotes that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “Where a judgment is supported by some competent, credible evidence, there is no abuse of discretion.” Barone v. Barone, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1336, 2008-Ohio-5793, ¶ 15, citing Van Vorce v. Van Vorce, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-04-11, 2004-Ohio-5646, ¶ 15.
{¶ 10} In his sole assignment of error, father contends that the trial court abused its discretion in calculating his child support obligation. Father advances two arguments to support his assignment of error. First, father argues that the trial court improperly computed his income under
{¶ 11} Concerning father’s first argument, gross income is defined in part as “the total of all earned and unearned income from all sources during a calendar year, whether or not the income is taxable, and includes income from salaries, wages, overtime pay, and bonuses to the extent described in division (D) of section 3119.05 of the Revised Code; commissions; * * * and all other sources of income.”
{¶ 12} In cases in which the combined gross income of the parents is greater than $6,600 but less than $150,000, courts are directed to calculate the amount of child support by referencing the basic child support schedule contained in
{¶ 13} In the case at bar, father argues that the trial court improperly included his 2016 commissions in its determination of his gross income under
(1) The yearly average of all overtime, commissions, and bonuses received during the three years immediately prior to the time when the person’s child support obligation is being computed;
(2) The total overtime, commissions, and bonuses received during the year immediately prior to the time when the person’s child support obligation is being computed.
{¶ 14} Referencing this statute, father insists that the trial court should have added the average of his 2013, 2014, and 2015 commissions onto his base salary from 2016 to arrive at his gross income for purposes of calculating his 2016 child support obligation. Instead, the trial court added the average of father’s 2014, 2015, and 2016 commissions onto his base salary in arriving at a child support obligation.
{¶ 15} Notably,
{¶ 16} Having found that
{¶ 18} Next, father argues that the trial court erred when it extrapolated his child support obligation from the child support guidelines under
If the combined gross income of both parents is greater than one hundred fifty thousand dollars per year, the court * * * shall determine the amount of the obligor’s child support obligation on a case-by-case basis and shall consider the needs and the standard of living of the children who are the subject of the child support order and of the parents. The court or agency shall compute a basic combined child support obligation that is no less than the obligation that would have been computed under the basic child support schedule and applicable worksheet for a combined gross income of one hundred fifty thousand dollars, unless the court or agency determines that it would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child, obligor, or obligee to order that amount. If the court or agency makes such a determination, it shall enter in the journal the figure, determination, and findings.
{¶ 19} In support of his argument, father cites a 2007 decision from the Eighth District, Siebart v. Tavarez, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88310, 2007-Ohio-2643, in which the court expressed “significant doubts whether the court fulfills its statutory duty to
{¶ 20} Two years prior to Siebart, the Eighth District found that “[n]othing in [
Although a trial court is not required to use the extrapolation method in calculating an award of child support under
{¶ 21} Having reviewed the record below, we find that the trial court did not err simply because it employed the extrapolation method in arriving at its child support figure. This finding is supported by our prior decisions citing to the Eighth District’s
Accounting for the substantial increase in [father’s] gross income in 2016, [the magistrate] determined that a modification of the first [pre-2016 child support amount] was fair, equitable, and in the best interest of the parties’ minor child.
* * *
After a thorough review of the Magistrate’s Decision and Findings of Fact, the transcript, and the fact that two worksheets were prepared, as opposed to one, the Court finds that [the magistrate] appropriately calculated [father’s] income. Furthermore, pursuant to
{¶ 22} This language demonstrates the trial court’s compliance with the mandates of
{¶ 23} In light of the foregoing, we find no merit to father’s second argument. Accordingly, father’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 24} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Father is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
James D. Jensen, J. _______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR. _______________________________
JUDGE