KAREN A. KANE v. SCOTT R. KANE
C.A. No. 26781
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
May 14, 2014
[Cite as Kane v. Kane, 2014-Ohio-2037.]
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF SUMMIT ss: APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 2004-06-2353
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Scott R. Kane (“Father“), appeals from the January 8, 2013 judgment entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We reverse and remand.
I.
{¶2} Father and Karen A. Kane‘s (“Mother“) marriage was dissolved by a Decree of Dissolution in 2004. At the time of their dissolution, the parties had four minor children: E.K., born November 14, 1988, J.K., born December 8, 1992, A.K., born March 15, 1994, and L.K., born March 11, 1999. The child support computation worksheet attached to the Shared Parenting Plan listed Father‘s total adjusted annual gross income as $87,547, and Mother‘s total annual adjusted gross income as $26,126, for a combined total annual gross income of $113,673. Additionally, pursuant to
{¶3} In May of 2007, Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA“) determined that Father‘s child support obligation for E.K. should terminate in June 2007, because E.K. will have: (1) attained the age of 18, and (2) graduated from high school. CSEA also recommended that ongoing support for the parties’ remaining three children be set at $1650 per month. A child support computation worksheet indicated that Father‘s adjusted annual gross income had increased to $111,352.04, and Mother‘s adjusted annual gross income had increased to $43,116.42, for a combined income of $154,468.46. Based upon these dollar amounts, Father‘s revised monthly child support obligation, for the parties’ three minor children, was calculated at $1,582.12, plus 2% processing charge.1 The prior upward “deviation” of $8,407 was not reflected on this worksheet.
{¶4} Mother requested a hearing before the trial court regarding CSEA‘s recommended adjustment to child support. After a full hearing, a magistrate found that “[p]ursuant to [
{¶5} In overruling Father‘s objections, the trial court stated:
The record reveals that the income of [Father] is $117,598 and the income of Mother is $40,426 [not including spousal support]. There is a clear disparity of income, as noted by the [m]agistrate in her [d]ecision- [Father] earns almost three times the amount that [Mother] earns. Further, the children are entitled to enjoy the same standard of living that they enjoyed since the parties’ marriage
terminated. The parties agree to increased child support * * * to enable [][Mother] and children to stay in the marital residence. These facts justify a deviation from the child support guideline amount.
As such, the trial court ordered monthly child support in the amount of $2,200, plus 2% processing charge.2
{¶6} Father did not appeal from this decision.
{¶7} In June of 2010, J.K., the parties’ second child, emancipated due to turning eighteen and graduating from high school. CSEA reviewed the matter and determined that child support should remain at $2,200 per month for the parties’ two remaining minor children. Father requested a review of the administrative order, and the magistrate found, among other things, that in 2010, Father‘s adjusted gross income was $151,134, and Mother‘s adjusted gross income was $46,072. Father filed objections/supplemental objections to the magistrate‘s decision regarding child support.
{¶8} In overruling these objections, the trial court stated:
At the time of the divorce, as at present, the $2,200 monthly child support obligation represented an upward deviation from guideline level support. In order to be valid, the reasons for the deviation must be specified. The magistrate presented a well-reasoned argument which applies the statutory factors. The court finds no abuse of discretion or error of law in the magistrate‘s decision, nor in the decision of the CSEA hearing officer[.]
{¶9} Father appealed, raising four assignments of error for our review. We have rearranged Father‘s assignments of error in order to facilitate our discussion.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE FACTORS CONTAINED IN
R.C. 3119.23 WHEN DEVIATING FROM THE BASIC GUIDELINE WHICH RESULTED IN THE COURT ISSUING A DEFACTO SPOUSAL SUPPORT MODIFICATION.
{¶10} In his second assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court failed to properly consider the factors set forth in
{¶11} “The purpose of child support is to meet the needs of the minor children.” Irish v. Irish, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA009810, 2011-Ohio-3111, ¶ 13, citing Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio-7107, ¶ 10, citing Park v. Ambrose, 85 Ohio App.3d 179, 183 (4th Dist.1993), fn.1. “Those needs include, shelter, food, clothing and ordinary medical care.” Irish at ¶ 13, citing In re Marriage of Stearns, 88 Ohio App.3d 264, 275 (10th Dist.1993). Further, “[t]he child support system is designed to protect the children and their best interests.” Irish at ¶ 13, citing Richardson v. Ballard, 113 Ohio App.3d 552, 555 (12th Dist.1996).
{¶12} Generally, “child support is calculated using the worksheet provided in
{¶13} “[W]hen the combined gross income of the parents exceeds $150,000, however, child support is determined 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 * * * 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 * * * 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.
Bajzer at ¶ 5, quoting
{¶14} “[W]hen the income of the parents is greater than $150,000, the appropriate standard for the amount of child support is ‘that amount necessary to maintain for the children the standard of living they would have enjoyed had the marriage continued.‘” Bajzer at ¶ 6, quoting Berthelot v. Berthelot, 154 Ohio App.3d 101, 2003-Ohio-4519, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.), quoting Birath v. Birath, 53 Ohio App.3d 31, 37 (10th Dist.1988). This determination is within the discretion of the trial court, and we review it for an abuse of that discretion. See, e.g., Peters v. Peters, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 03CA008306, 03CA008307, 2004-Ohio-2517, ¶ 39-41.
{¶15} Further, “[d]ownward deviations from that minimum require a determination ‘that it would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child, obligor, or
{¶16} Here, the record reveals that, as of 2010, Father‘s adjusted annual gross income increased from $111,352.04 to $151,134, while Mother‘s adjusted annual gross income increased from $39,516.42 to $46,072, for a combined adjusted annual gross income of $197,206.3 Clearly, the parties’ 2010 combined incomes are over $150,000, triggering
{¶18} As such, it is impossible for this Court to determine whether: (1) $2,200 is the minimum amount of child support required for the parties’ remaining minor children5 pursuant to
{¶19} Therefore, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied
{¶20} Accordingly, Father‘s second assignment of error is sustained.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN BASING ITS [RULING] ON OHIO REVISED CODE 3119.23 WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINI[N]G SUPPORT BASED ON THE BASIC CHILD SUPPORT SCHEDULE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FACT IN FAILING TO REDUCE [FATHER‘S] MONTHLY SUPPORT OBLIGATION UPON EMANCIPATION BASED ON THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FACT IN FAILING TO REDUCE [FATHER‘S] MONTHLY SUPPORT OBLIGATION UPON EMANCIPATION[.]
{¶21} Based upon our resolution of the second assignment of error, Father‘s first, third and fourth assignments of error are moot and we decline to address them.
III.
{¶22} In sustaining Father‘s second assignment of error, and deeming Father‘s first, third and fourth assignments of error moot, the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J. CONCURS.
BELFANCE, J. CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
{¶23} I concur in the majority‘s decision to reverse the judgment of the trial court because the record does not contain a completed current child support worksheet.
{¶24} The Supreme Court of Ohio has been very clear that “[a] child support computation worksheet, required to be used by a trial court in calculating the amount of an obligor‘s child support obligation * * *, must actually be completed and made a part of the trial court‘s record.” Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (1992), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶25} In cases involving parents with combined gross incomes greater than $150,000, the trial court or agency is required to
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.
{¶26} Thus, even in cases involving incomes greater than $150,000, in which child support awards are determined on a case-by-case basis, see id., information from a completed child support worksheet provides a valuable starting point for both the trial and appellate courts. See id. Absent a completed child support worksheet, this Court is unable to effectively review the merits of the trial court‘s child support award. See Marker at 142.
{¶27} The majority‘s analysis acknowledges the problems created by the absence of a current child support worksheet in the record but reverses on an alternate basis. Because I agree that this matter must be reversed, I concur in the majority‘s judgment.
APPEARANCES:
LARRY D. SHENISE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
GARY M. ROSEN, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.