JOHN HUBER, Appellant v. OHIO DEPT. OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee
C.A. No. 30205
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
March 21, 2025
[Cite as Huber v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2025-Ohio-987.]
HUFFMAN, J.
Trial Court Case No. 2023 CV 02279 (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Rendered on March 21, 2025
JOHN HUBER, Appellant, Pro Se
ANGELA M. SULLIVAN, Attorney for Appellee
HUFFMAN, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant John Huber appeals from the denial of his Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS), which was affirmed upon review by the trial court. Huber appears to contend that his assistance group‘s income should have been averaged due to fluctuations in self-employment income and expenses and that an insurance claim
I. Background Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Prior to February 2023, Huber and his minor child were part of a two-person assistance group (AG) that received SNAP benefits (commonly known as “food stamps“). In December 2022, Huber submitted a change report to the Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services (MCDJFS), reporting that he had gotten married and that his spouse was employed. MCDJFS then notified Huber that his recent marriage could affect his SNAP benefit eligibility; the agency requested additional information, including his wife‘s identification, birth certificate, and income documentation. Huber provided MCDJFS with one of his wife‘s paystubs from her employment in December 2022, which showed her gross bi-weekly income as $1,811, and evidence of
{¶ 3} Based on Huber‘s AG‘s gross income of $5,781, a standard deduction of $193, an earned income deduction of $778, and $0 in excess shelter expenses ($32 property taxes + $646 standard utility deduction - 50% of adjusted gross income), MCDJFS determined that his AG was over the gross monthly income limit for categorical eligibility (i.e., it exceeded 130% of the federal poverty level monthly income standard of $2,495 for an AG size of three people). The AG‘s net adjusted monthly income of $4,810 also exceeded the net income standard of $1,920 for a three-person AG. For these reasons, MCDJFS determined that Huber‘s AG was over both the gross income limit for categorical eligibility and over the net income standard and thus, was ineligible for SNAP benefits. A termination of benefits notice was sent to Huber in February 2023, and he requested a State hearing.
{¶ 4} At the State hearing, Huber testified that he had stopped receiving RSDI when he remarried and was in the process of seeking his own disability determination. (The electronic verification obtained by MCDJFS, however, showed Huber was still eligible for $944 in RSDI per month effective January 1, 2023.) Huber also testified that, in addition to his spouse being employed, she was also self-employed as part of an S corporation, and he provided a spreadsheet from his bank account showing deposits and
{¶ 5} At the conclusion of the State hearing, Huber was offered the opportunity to supplement the record with additional documents regarding the nature of his wife‘s self-employment. He later sent an email stating that his and his wife‘s “trade or business” was construction work but that they planned to shift the focus of their business toward fostering children in the future. He claimed that the business was an S corporation but did not provide a business name, articles of incorporation, or any other information related to the business.
{¶ 6} The State hearing officer overruled Huber‘s SNAP appeal, finding that MCDJFS had not used any self-employment earnings in making its income determination and in terminating Huber‘s benefits and had correctly calculated the AG‘s income in accordance with the law. The officer explained that, regarding the reported self-employment income, the verification submitted to MCDJFS was insufficient to verify the income and expenses, and moreover, no self-employment income was even included in
{¶ 7} On appeal, ODJFS overruled Huber‘s appeal, finding that MCDJFS had appropriately calculated the AG‘s income in accordance with Ohio law and had properly denied Huber‘s SNAP benefits based on his AG‘s gross and net income ineligibility. ODJFS also reiterated that any self-employment income was not included in the AG‘s income calculation and therefore, did not affect the eligibility determination. Huber appealed the determination of his administrative appeal to the trial court.
{¶ 8} In affirming ODJFS‘s decision upholding MCDJFS‘s termination of Huber‘s benefits, the trial court considered both the gross income test and the net income test used by MCDJFS. The trial court confirmed that the gross income eligibility standard at 130% of the federal poverty level for a three-person AG was $2,495. Huber‘s AG consisted of him, his minor child, and his wife. MCDJFS determined that Huber‘s AG‘s gross monthly income was $5,781, which included his wife‘s earned monthly income of $3,893 (bi-weekly earnings of $1,811 multiplied by 2.15) and Huber and his son‘s unearned monthly RSDI of $1,888 ($944 each). This gross income of $5,781 was over the relevant gross income eligibility standard of $2,495. Moreover, even assuming that Huber was no longer receiving RSDI benefits in the amount of $944, his AG‘s gross income was $4,837, which still exceeded the gross income eligibility standard, rendering
{¶ 9} The trial court further observed that, because Huber‘s AG did not meet the gross income eligibility standard, MCDJFS, the State hearing officer, and ODJFS were not required to calculate and compare his AG‘s net income to the net eligibility standard. Even so, the court noted that Huber‘s AG‘s income also did not meet the net income eligibility standard. The deductions that applied to Huber‘s AG net income calculation included the earned income deduction (20% of gross monthly earned income totaling $778) and the standard deduction ($193). Applying these deductions, Huber‘s AG‘s net income totaled $4,810, which exceeded the net income eligibility standard of $1,920. Furthermore, even without Huber‘s RSDI monthly income of $944, the AG‘s net income totaled $3,865, which was still over the net income standard of $1,920. Finally, the trial court addressed Huber‘s argument that he and his wife were self-employed and running an S corporation and thus, there were other deductions that should have been considered in his income determination, which would have made his AG eligible for benefits. The trial court noted that the State hearing officer and ODJFS had found that the purported self-employment income information submitted by Huber was insufficient to verify such income and expenses, as it was impossible to ascertain from the documents what was income and what were expenses. As such, the trial court agreed that MCDJFS appropriately excluded self-employment income in its income determination and in its ultimate decision to terminate Huber‘s AG‘s SNAP benefits.
{¶ 10} Huber now appeals to this court.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 12}
- (1) A table of contents, with page references.
- (2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
- (3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected.
- (4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.
- (5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
- (6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in accordance with division (D) of this rule.
(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a summary. - (8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.
{¶ 13} We note that “[l]itigants who choose to proceed pro se are presumed to know the law and correct procedure, and are held to the same standard as other litigants. A litigant proceeding pro se ‘cannot expect or demand special treatment from the judge, who is to sit as an impartial arbiter.’ ” Mosbaugh at ¶ 12, citing Dunina v. Stemple, 2007-Ohio-4719, ¶ 3 (2d Dist.). However, while we agree with ODJFS that Huber‘s brief did not fully comply with
Ohio‘s SNAP Benefits
{¶ 14} Ohio SNAP assists eligible low-income individuals and families to stretch their food budgets and is subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. See
{¶ 15} Participation in the SNAP program is limited to households “whose incomes are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet.”
{¶ 16} The income eligibility standards for Ohio SNAP are adjusted annually every October.
{¶ 17} The net monthly income is calculated by determining the total gross monthly earned income and then multiplying it by twenty percent and subtracting that amount from the AG‘s total gross income.
{¶ 18} “Assistance group income” includes all countable income from whatever source as defined in
{¶ 19} We review a common pleas court‘s decision in an administrative appeal to determine whether the common pleas court abused its discretion in determining whether reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the administrative order. Gyugo v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities, 2017-Ohio-6953, ¶ 13, citing Pons v. State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993). We also exercise plenary review over questions of law, including questions of statutory interpretation. Id., citing State v. Straley, 2014-Ohio-2139, ¶ 9. An abuse of discretion requires a finding that the trial court‘s action was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St. 3d 157, 161 (1990).
{¶ 20} Huber first contends that his AG‘s self-employment business consisted of construction work with a plan to shift toward foster parenting in the future. He generally complains that the AG‘s income was miscalculated because MCDJFS did not properly average anticipated income from self-employment with consideration of fluctuations in income and expenses. In response, ODJFS initially asserts that Huber waived this argument because he failed to raise this issue in the trial court and is precluded from raising it for the first time on appeal. ODJFS also argues that there is no evidence in the record to support Huber‘s contention that his wife‘s purported self-employment income was included in his AG‘s income calculation, and, in any case, his AG‘s income still exceeds the SNAP income eligibility standard. We agree.
{¶ 21} For determining a SNAP AG‘s eligibility and monthly benefit, “the county agency is to take into account the income already received by the assistance group during
{¶ 22} Income that is received on a monthly basis but fluctuates from month-to-month and income that is received less often than monthly are to be averaged.
{¶ 23} The record reflects that Huber did not raise this argument in the trial court or at any other time and raises the argument for the first time in this appeal. A party is precluded from raising an argument on appeal that the party failed to assert in the trial court. State v. Anderson, 2017-Ohio-5656, ¶ 4 (“New issues cannot be raised and argued for the first time on appeal.“); State ex rel. Zollner v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 66 Ohio St.3d 276, 278 (1993) (when a party fails to raise an argument in the trial court, he or she waives the right to raise the argument on appeal). In this case, because Huber failed to raise this
{¶ 24} Even if Huber were not precluded from raising the argument, we note that MCDJFS did not include any self-employment income in calculating his AG‘s income for SNAP benefit eligibility. While Huber submitted an apparent bank statement to reflect self-employment income to MCDJFS, MCDJFS did not include it in the AG‘s income determination because it was insufficient to verify self-employment. At the State hearing, Huber also testified that, in addition to his spouse being employed, she was also self-employed as part of an S corporation, and he provided a spreadsheet showing deposit and debit card transaction amounts without explanation. Following the hearing, the record remained open for Huber to supplement it with additional documentation regarding his wife‘s self-employment income, but he only submitted her unsupported self-employment income and expenses for the month of December 2022. Income that is received monthly but fluctuates from month-to-month is to be averaged. However, in this case, even assuming Huber presented one month of fluctuating self-employment income, the income had no impact on his ineligibility for SNAP benefits because it was not included in his income determination.
{¶ 25} Huber next asserts that an insurance claim payment from a car accident, which he received and apparently believes was also used in calculating his AG‘s income, resulted in his AG‘s income being inappropriately elevated. He contends that the insurance payment should have been excluded from his AG‘s income calculation. In response, ODJFS again contends that Huber cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal; it further argues that there is nothing in the record supporting Huber‘s contention
{¶ 26} Once again, Huber did not raise this argument in the trial court or otherwise but now seeks to raise it for the first time. As we already explained, he cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal. Additionally, Huber has not cited anything in the record which showed that the alleged insurance payment increased his AG‘s income determination and resulted in his SNAP benefit loss.
{¶ 27} The parties do not dispute that, for fiscal year 2023, the maximum gross monthly income (equal to 130% of the federal poverty level) and net monthly income for a three-person AG were $2,495 and $1,920, respectively. Huber‘s AG‘s total non-exempt gross monthly income of $5,781 included his wife‘s monthly earned income from her employment in the amount of $3,893 ($1,811 bi-weekly multiplied by 2.15) and $1,888 in unearned income (Huber‘s $944 per month and his minor child‘s $944 per month in RSDI benefits). The AG‘s total income of $5,781 exceeded the $2,495 maximum gross monthly income for a three-person AG. Even if Huber were no longer receiving his monthly $944 RSDI benefit, his AG‘s total income of $4,837 still exceeded the $2,495 maximum gross monthly income amount, rendering his AG ineligible for SNAP benefits.
{¶ 28} The analysis could have stopped there because Huber‘s AG was already ineligible for benefits based on the AG‘s gross income determination. Still, a net income determination was calculated for Huber‘s AG; it was determined that his AG‘s net monthly income after statutory deductions totaled $4,810, which also exceeded the $1,920 statutory net income limit. Lastly, even if Huber no longer received $944 per month in RSDI benefits, his AG‘s net income at $3,865 still exceeded the net income standard.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 30} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EPLEY, P.J. and LEWIS, J., concur.