A.S., APPELLEE, v. J.W., APPELLANT.
No. 2018-0602
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
June 25, 2019
2019-Ohio-2473
DEWINE, J.
Submitted January 30, 2019
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as A.S. v. J.W., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2473.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-2473
A.S., APPELLEE, v. J.W., APPELLANT.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as A.S. v. J.W., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2473.]
Domestic relations—Child support—Annual gross income—Income from commissions earned by a parent is included under
(No. 2018-0602—Submitted January 30, 2019—Decided June 25, 2019.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-17-1099, 2018-Ohio-1001.
{¶ 1} This case presents a question of statutory construction relevant to the calculation of child support. Under
I. The statutory provision at issue: R.C. 3119.05(D)
{¶ 2} We will get to the facts shortly, but before doing so it is helpful to say something about
{¶ 3} In order to determine a child-support award, a court must calculate the gross incomes of each parent. See
(D) When the court * * * calculates the gross income of a parent, it shall include the lesser of the following as income from overtime and bonuses:
(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.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 4} The reader will note that subsections (1) and (2) refer to “overtime, commissions, and bonuses” but the introductory language speaks only of “overtime and bonuses.” What to make of this difference—and specifically whether
II. The proceedings below
{¶ 5} In September 2015, A.S. (“Mother“) filed a complaint against J.W. (“Father“) asking the juvenile court to allocate parental rights and responsibilities and to establish a child-support award for their minor child. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2016 to determine, among other matters, the incomes of the parties. Father testified that he had received a larger commission than usual that year based on the culmination of four years of work on a single account, but that such a commission was unlikely to recur. Following the hearing, the magistrate calculated the parties’ relevant incomes as follows, including projected amounts for 2016:
| YEAR | INCOME | |
|---|---|---|
| Mother | 2013 | $122,619 |
| 2014 | $132,147 | |
| 2015 | $131,506 | |
| 2016 | $140,000 |
| YEAR | SALARY | COMMISSIONS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Father | 2013 | $90,000 | $85,280 |
| 2014 | $90,000 | $246,332 | |
| 2015 | $90,000 | $212,898 | |
| 2016 | $94,000 | $368,794 |
{¶ 7} With respect to the second amount, the magistrate calculated Father‘s gross income for 2016 by averaging his 2014, 2015, and projected 2016 commissions and then adding the average yearly commission amount to his 2016 base salary. Practically speaking, including Father‘s unusually high 2016 commissions in the equation increased the total income attributable to him for that year and, consequently, resulted in a greater child-support obligation.
{¶ 8} Father objected to the magistrate‘s child-support determinations, asserting in part that the magistrate erred in including the projected 2016 commissions when calculating his gross income for that year. The juvenile court overruled Father‘s objections and adopted the order of the magistrate, after making one unrelated modification.
{¶ 9} Father appealed the decision to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, arguing that pursuant to
{¶ 10} The Sixth District affirmed the judgment, concluding that commissions were not governed by
{¶ 11} After finding that Father‘s commissions should not be included in the calculation under
{¶ 12} We accepted Father‘s appeal on the question of whether commissions are calculated in the same manner as overtime and bonuses for the purpose of determining gross income pursuant to
III. The scope of R.C. 3119.05(D)
{¶ 13} With virtually no analysis, the court of appeals dismissed the inclusion of the word “commissions” in subsections (1) and (2) of
{¶ 14} A fundamental canon of statutory interpretation is the presumption that each word in a statute was included by the legislature for a reason. See generally Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, 174-179 (2012); State ex rel. Bohan v. Indus. Comm., 147 Ohio St. 249, 251, 70 N.E.2d 888 (1946);
{¶ 15} Our role is to apply the statute as it is written. See Johnson v. Montgomery, 151 Ohio St.3d 75, 2017-Ohio-7445, 86 N.E.3d 279, ¶ 15.
{¶ 16} After concluding that commissions are not included under
{¶ 17} That
| INCOME: | COLUMN I FATHER | COLUMN II MOTHER | COLUMN III COMBINED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. | Annual gross income from employment or, when determined appropriate by the court or agency, average annual gross income from employment over a reasonable period of years (Exclude overtime and bonuses, self-employment income or commissions) | $__________ | $__________ | |
| 1b. | Amount of overtime, bonuses, and commissions. (Year 1 represents the most recent year) FATHER MOTHER Year 3 (three years ago) $__________ $__________ Year 2 (two years ago) $__________ $__________ Year 1 (last calendar year) $__________ $__________ AVERAGE: (Include in Column I and/or Column II the average of the three years or the year 1 amount, whichever is less, if there exists a reasonable expectation that the total earnings from overtime and/or bonuses during the current calendar year will meet or exceed the amount that is the lower of the average of the three years or the Year 1 amount. If, however, there exists a reasonable expectation that the total earnings from overtime/bonuses during the current calendar year will be less than the lower of the average of the three years or the Year 1 amount, include only the amount reasonably expected to be earned this year.) | $__________ | $__________ |
Line 1.a. of the worksheet asks for either “[a]nnual gross income from employment” or “when determined appropriate by the court * * *, average annual gross income from employment over a reasonable period of years.”
{¶ 18} The court of appeals also relied on
{¶ 19} We therefore conclude that commissions are included within the terms of
IV. The trial court incorrectly calculated Father‘s income
{¶ 20} Having established the proper methodology, we turn to the award entered by the trial court. When confronted with income earned through overtime, bonuses, and commissions,
{¶ 21} Here, the court averaged Father‘s commissions received during 2014 and 2015, and his projected commissions for 2016. It then added that figure to Father‘s 2016 salary to determine Father‘s total gross income for 2016.
{¶ 22} We therefore reverse the judgment of the appellate court and remand this case to the trial court to properly apply the terms of
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur.
FISCHER, J., concurs in judgment only.
STEWART, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DONNELLY, J.
{¶ 23} I respectfully disagree with the majority‘s conclusion that when a court is determining “gross income,” all commission income should be calculated in the manner that overtime and bonuses are calculated pursuant to
{¶ 24}
{¶ 25}
When the court * * * calculates the gross income of a parent, it shall include the lesser of the following as income from overtime and bonuses:
(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.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 26} Although the language in
{¶ 27} I disagree with the court of appeals’ observation, in a footnote, that the inclusion of “commissions” in subsections (1) and (2) of
{¶ 28} The majority opinion is correct that our role is to apply statutes as written. But the language of one statute must be interpreted in concert with the other statutes relating to the same subject matter. State ex rel. Fockler v. Husted, 150 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-224, 82 N.E.3d 1135, ¶ 13. ” ‘[A]ll statutes which relate to the same general subject matter must be read in pari materia. And in reading such statutes in pari materia, and construing them together, this court must give such a reasonable construction as to give the proper force and effect to each and all such statutes.’ ” Id., quoting Johnson‘s Mkts., Inc. v. New Carlisle Dept. of Health, 58 Ohio St.3d 28, 35, 567 N.E.2d 1018 (1991). These statutes can be interpreted in concert with each other.
{¶ 29} Commissions should not be treated as overtime or bonus income when those commissions were not earned as overtime or bonus income. See Poling v. Poling, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-189, 2013-Ohio-5141, ¶ 13 (rejecting obligor‘s argument that the trial court should have treated his commissions as overtime or bonus income under
{¶ 30} Although line 1.a. of the
{¶ 31} Without explaining why, the majority has decided that all commission income should be treated in the same manner. I disagree. In calculating gross income, commissions earned from bonus or overtime income should be calculated pursuant to
DONNELLY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
Julianne Renee Krell Pickard and Jay E. Feldstein, for appellee.
Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appellant.