Graham v. Graham

[Cite as Graham v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-1435.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
UNION COUNTY
TIMOTHY P. GRAHAM,
CASE NO. 14-19-18
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PATRICIA L. GRAHAM, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
Domestic Relations Division
Trial Court No. 14-DR-0012
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: April 13, 2020
APPEARANCES:
John H. Cousins IV for Appellant
Bruce A. Hyslop for Appellee
Case No. 14-19-18
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Patricia L. Graham (“Patricia”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, modifying the child support paid by plaintiff-appellee Timothy
P. Graham (“Timothy”). On appeal, Patricia alleges that the trial court erred in
calculating the child support and by denying her motion for attorney fees. For the
reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On November 17, 2014, the trial court entered a decree of divorce and
found that the shared parenting plan of the parties children was in their best interest.
Doc. 52. The trial court ordered Timothy to pay child support in the amount of
$1,250 per month. Id. At the time of this order, the parties combined income was
approximately $228,800.70, which exceeded the $150,000 maximum scheduled
income of the worksheet. Id.{¶3} On May 2, 2018, the Union County Child Support Enforcement Agency
filed an administrative adjustment recommendation that Timothy now pay child
support in the amount of $3,221.71. Doc. 54. The recommendation determined that
Timothy had an adjusted gross income of approximately $267,724 and Patricia had
an adjusted gross income of approximately $85,593 for a combined income of
approximately $353,318. Id. The amount of child support was extrapolated because
the amount exceeded the $150,000 schedule set by statute. Id. Timothy objected to
the recommendation and requested a court hearing. Id. A hearing was set for July
-2-
Case No. 14-19-18
17, 2018. Doc. 59. On July 10, 2018, Patricia requested a continuance of the
hearing to allow for additional discovery. Doc. 67. The motion for the continuance
was granted. Doc. 68.
{¶4} On August 1, 2018, Patricia filed a motion to reallocate parental rights
and responsibilities which included a request to increase Timothy’s child support to
$3,194.26 per month. Doc. 76. Timothy filed his memorandum contra Patricia’s
motion on August 17, 2018. Doc. 80. On September 20, 2018, Patricia filed a
motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses. Doc. 81. Timothy also filed a
motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses on October 4, 2018. Doc. 83. A
hearing was held on all motions on November 29, 2018. Doc. 88. On January 23,
2019, the magistrate issued his decision. Doc. 88. The magistrate determined that
Timothy’s income for child support purposes was $246, 897 and Patricia’s income
for child support purposes was $87,318. Id. at 7. The magistrate then determined
that using the extrapolation method from the support worksheet, the guideline
support from Timothy would be $2,954.47. Id. The magistrate then adjusted the
amount to account for the in-kind support received and reduced the amount of child
support to $2,600 per month. Id. at 10. The magistrate denied both motions for
attorney fees finding that the facts did not support the requests. Id. at 11-12.
{¶5} On January 29, 2019, Timothy filed objections to the magistrate’s
decision claiming 1) the effective date of the modification was prejudicial and 2)
the magistrate improperly calculated the support when considering the in-kind
-3-
Case No. 14-19-18
contributions. Doc. 91. Patricia filed cross-objections to the magistrate’s decision
claiming the magistrate erred by 1) excluding Timothy’s “additional” income, 2)
denying her motion for attorney fees, and 3) failing to modify the shared parenting
decree. Doc. 92. On April 19, 2019, the trial court entered judgment on the
objections. Doc. 94. The trial court overruled all of the objections, but modified
the magistrate’s decision as to the amount of child support owed. Id. The trial court
ordered that from May 1, 2018 until March 28, 2019, Timothy would owe monthly
child support of $2,600. Id. However, the trial court noted that on March 28, 2019,
a new child support statute became effective that set forth a worksheet for combined
incomes of up to $336,467.04 rather than the previous $150,000. Id. at 17. Since
the combined income of Patricia and Timothy was less than that amount, the trial
court found the statute to be applicable to all support after the effective date. Id. As
of the effective date of the statute, the monthly child support was reduced to
$1,921.91 as determined by the appropriate worksheet. Id. at 19 and Ex. C.
Timothy did not appeal the judgment of the trial court. Patricia filed a timely notice
of appeal from this judgment. Doc. 96. On appeal, Patricia raises the following
assignments of error.
First Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law
by calculating child support under the statutory amendments in
H.B. 366.
-4-
Case No. 14-19-18
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law
by excluding $39,861 from [Timothy’s] gross income under R.C.
3119.05(K).
Third Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law
by denying [Patricia’s] motion for attorney fees and litigation
expenses.
For the purpose of clarity, we will address the assignments out of order.
Calculation of Income
{¶6} In the second assignment of error, Patricia claims that the trial court
erred by excluding $39,861 from Timothy’s gross income. This alleged income was
additional income that Timothy earned by performing chart reviews that he had
done from his residency. Timothy’s tax returns showed that in the three years prior
to the hearing, he had earned an average of $39,861 in addition to his annual salary
of $246,897. Patricia argues that the trial court erred by not including this income
in the child support calculation.
{¶7} At the hearing, Timothy testified that he was employed as the Program
Director for the Family Medicine Residency Program at Mount Carmel/St. Ann’s.
Vol. 1 Tr. 42-43. Timothy testified that at the time of the hearing, his salary was
$246,897, which included a recent increase of $6,000 for being the director of the
department. Id. at 44. Timothy also indicated that he received a stipend of $6,000
for being the elected department chair, but that his position would end at the end of
-5-
Case No. 14-19-18
the year and there was no guarantee he would receive it again. Id. at 46. From the
time of the divorce forward, Timothy also had been working reviewing charts as an
independent contractor for CareWorks. Id. at 47. Timothy testified that he had
stopped working for CareWorks in April of 2018. Id. at 50-51. When asked why
he stopped working for CareWorks, Timothy testified as follows.
Q. Why don’t you explain to the Court why you stopped working
for CareWorks?
A. Several reasons, actually. Um, at around – around that time,
um, our – my level of responsibility in my job at St. Ann’s actually
increased. We’re down a couple of faculty members, so I’m doing
more clinical responsibility within the program to keep it running
effectively and be able to train our residents.
Q. Keep your voice up.
A. I’m sorry, yes, I tend to have a quiet voice. I’m sorry.
Secondly, I am, also completing my Master’s of Health
Professions Education through the University of Illinois at
Chicago. This year is my focus year on completing my thesis so I
can actually get that degree done. Um, UIC gives you five years
to get your Master’s done. This is my fifth year, so I am devoting
a significant amount of time to preparing, um, reviewing and
getting ready to defend my thesis before this year ends.
Q. Now, wait a minute. Make sure you clarify. This year –
A. I’m sorry, this – I think academic year, so yeah, thankfully,
it’s not this month but by the end of July I need to have my – I
need to have my thesis defended.
Q. Okay.
A. Thirdly, next year is – next year is 2019, is my Board
recertification date. So, um, in family medicine, we’re on a ten
year Board cycle, and so I need additional time to actually
-6-
Case No. 14-19-18
prepare for those Boards and make sure that I actually pass them
because my employment is contingent upon me being a Board
certified family medicine physician. So, this tends to be a high
stakes endeavor for all of us in the practice and it’s not atypical
for us to spend additional time trying to prepare for that.
Next – I forget what number I’m on – but next I, also, have
recently joined the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education’s Milestone Review Committee which is a national
opportunity to actually help shape the assessment system for
residents in family medicine which are going to go into effect in
2020, so that’s going to require additional time of me in review,
revision over the next year-and-a-half or so.
And, finally, a couple months after that I was getting married and
I am actually going to and do now have somebody at home with
me every night. Um, my wife would prefer that I don’t do that
because she would rather have me at home spending time with
her and with the family than with my nose in charts and so that
was a good motivation for me as well.
Q. Would you tell me, the Board certification, that’s kind of front
and center, isn’t it, in terms of your job?
A. Out of everything that I mentioned, that’s probably the most
critical to me continuing employment. Virtually every place
requires Board certification but most clearly with me being in
graduate medical education we have to be Board Certified.
There’s not – there’s not another way around that.
Q. You really didn’t tell us. What is the last year for obtaining
that Board certification?
A. A, yeah, I’m sorry, it is in 2019. It’s a set time. It’s a ten year
– a ten year cycle and my ten year cycle is coming up in 2019.
Q. So, when do you plan on taking your Boards for
recertification?
A. I have two opportunities. Either in April or in November
depending upon level of preparation. Currently, I have two self-
-7-
Case No. 14-19-18
study Board review courses that I’ve ordered that I am going
through on a regular basis in some of my down time to make sure
that I’m actually prepared.
Q. Did you take these items into consideration when you decided
not to take CareWorks’ file reviews any further past April of this
year?
A. Yes, I did. Um, and if you look at that sheet, prior to that time,
I started reducing the amount I was doing to see if I could just
reduce my – my number of charts and still be able to keep up with
everything that I’m trying to do and even reducing it was difficult,
so I ended up – I ended up just terminating it.1
Vol. 1 Tr. at 51-54.2 The trial court found this testimony to be credible and
determined that the additional income would no longer be included in Timothy’s
income. Doc. 94 at 13. Patricia argues that the trial court erred by excluding it.
{¶8} “Income” is defined as the gross income of a parent who is employed
to full capacity. R.C. 3119.01(C)(9)(a).
“Gross income” means, except as excluded in division (C)(12) of
this section, 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; royalties; tips; rents;
dividends; severance pay; pensions; interest; trust income;
annuities; social security benefits, including retirement,
disability, and survivor benefits that are not means-tested;
workers' compensation benefits; unemployment insurance
benefits; disability insurance benefits; benefits that are not
means-tested and that are received by and in the possession of the
veteran who is the beneficiary for any service-connected disability
under a program or law administered by the United States
1
The “sheet” referenced was Ex. 2 which showed a decrease in monthly income from over $2,000 a month
in payments to less than $400 a month by the final disbursement shown.
2
Evidence of Timothy’s professional obligations was presented in Ex. 4.
-8-
Case No. 14-19-18
department of veterans' affairs or veterans' administration;
spousal support actually received; and all other sources of
income. “Gross income” includes income of members of any
branch of the United States armed services or national guard,
including, amounts representing base pay, basic allowance for
quarters, basic allowance for subsistence, supplemental
subsistence allowance, cost of living adjustment, specialty pay,
variable housing allowance, and pay for training or other types of
required drills; self-generated income; and potential cash flow
from any source.
R.C. 3119.01(C)(12). However, a trial court may disregard additional income from
a second job under appropriate circumstances. R.C. 3119.05(K).
{¶9} Here, Patricia claims that the trial court erred by believing the testimony
of Timothy that he was no longer working for CareWorks. A review of the record
shows that Patricia presented no evidence that Timothy was still conducting chart
reviews for CareWorks, and is instead asking the trial court to impute the additional
income that Timothy previously earned to his current income. However, the trial
court found Timothy’s testimony that he was no longer conducting chart reviews to
be credible. The trial court also found his reasons for stopping the reviews to be
rational. This Court notes that a drop in income due to a voluntary choice to quit a
second job is not necessarily a demonstration of voluntary underemployment.
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-14-22, 2015-Ohio-2976, ¶ 54.
“The test is not only whether the change was voluntary, but also whether it was
made with due regard to the obligor’s income-producing abilities and her or his duty
to provide for the continuing needs of the child or children concerned.” Id. quoting
-9-
Case No. 14-19-18
Woloch v Foster, 98 Ohio App.3d 806, 811, 649 N.E.2d 918 (2d Dist. 1994). “[T]o
avoid the imputation of potential income, the parent must show an objectively
reasonable basis for terminating or otherwise diminishing employment.
Reasonableness is measured by examining the effect of the parent’s decision on the
interest of the child.” Aldo v. Angle, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-103, 2010-Ohio-
2008, ¶ 35. “There are times when a court must respect the reasonable choice of an
obligor to attempt to better his life in the hope that such a choice will ultimately
benefit the lives of the children.” Id. at 36. The enforcement of child support
obligations was not intended to force parents to keep the same jobs they had at the
time of the divorce. Id. Parents subject to child support orders are free to adjust
their employment as long as they are not avoiding their responsibilities to meet the
needs of their children. Id.
{¶10} A review of the testimony shows that even after choosing to stop his
second job, Timothy was fully employed and was earning a significant amount of
money ($246,897) which allowed him to continue to provide for the needs of his
children. Although the statute allows a trial court to impute income if a party is
underemployed, it does not require a party to remain overemployed.3 Timothy
testified to five reasons why he chose not to continue working as an independent
contractor with CareWorks: 1) increased responsibility at his primary job; 2) a need
3
Many parents could earn more money to support their children if they worked more hours, but at what cost?
A trial court must strike a balance between earning sufficient income to provide for the needs of their children
with the time a parent is able to spend with their children.
-10-
Case No. 14-19-18
to complete his advanced degree; 3) a need to study for recertification to retain his
primary job; 4) participation in a profession assessment committee; and 5) a desire
to spend more time with his family. The trial court believed this testimony and
found these reasons to be an appropriate circumstance for not counting the past
secondary income in the current calculation.4 As the trial court’s determination was
supported by competent, credible evidence, this court does not find that the trial
court abused its discretion in choosing to exclude the evidence from a prior second
job. The second assignment of error is overruled.
Calculation of Child Support
{¶11} In the first assignment of error, Patricia alleges that the trial court erred
by using the amended worksheet that went into effect on March 28, 2019, to
calculate child support after that date. “It is well established that a trial court's
decision regarding child support obligations falls within the discretion of the trial
court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.” Pauly
v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, 1997-Ohio-105, 686 N.E.2d 1108. “In any action
in which a court child support order is issued or modified, * * * the court or agency
shall calculate the amount of the parents’ child support and cash medical support in
accordance with the basic child support schedule, the applicable worksheet, and the
other provisions of Chapter 3119 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 3119.02.
4
Contrary to Patricia’s position that there was no evidentiary support for the trial court’s conclusion, there
was both testimony and exhibits.
-11-
Case No. 14-19-18
{¶12} In this case, the relevant facts are that on May 17, 2018, Timothy filed
a request for a hearing following an administrative adjustment of his child support.
The hearing was held in November of 2018. On January 23, 2019, the magistrate
issued a decision modifying the amount of child support. Both parties filed
objections. The trial court did not rule on the objections until April 19, 2019.
However, on March 28, 2019, a new child support calculation schedule went into
effect, In reaching its decision, the trial court affirmed the decision of the magistrate
up until the effective date of the revised R.C. 3119.021. As of that effective date,
the trial court adjusted the amount of child support to comply with the new statutory
child support schedule.
{¶13} Under the prior version of R.C. 3119.021, a combined income of more
than $150,000 was outside of the scope of the basic child support schedule. The
trial court was instructed to do as follows.
(B) If the combined gross income of both parents is greater than
one hundred fifty thousand dollars per year, the court, with
respect to a court child support order, or the child support
enforcement agency, with respect to an administrative child
support order, 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 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 oblige to order that amount. If
-12-
Case No. 14-19-18
the court or agency makes such a determination, it shall enter in
the journal the figure, determination, and findings.
R.C. 3119.04(B) effective date 3-22-2001. As of March 28, 2019, this was changed
so that the scope of the basic child support schedule was extended to $336,467.04.
R.C. 3119.021 effective date 3-28-2019. If the parties’ combined income is lower
than the maximum amount, the trial court is required to use the standard worksheet
form to calculate child support. R.C. 3119.022(A) effective March 28, 2019. R.C.
3119.04 was also amended to apply to only those cases where the combined parental
income exceeds the amount set forth in R.C. 3119.021. R.C. 3119.04 effective date
March 28, 2019.
{¶14} Here, the trial court determined that the combined income of the
parties was $334,215. Doc. 94 at 17. As of March 28, 2019, this amount would be
subject to being determined by the statutory child support calculation and not a case-
by-case basis as set forth in R.C. 3119.04. To avoid having the statute apply
retroactively, the trial court only applied the statutory calculation from the effective
date of the statute, not to the time prior to that when the calculation was required to
be determined on a case-by-case basis. Doc. 94 at 18. The original child support
ordered at the time of the divorce was $1,250 per month. Id. at 8. From May 1,
2018, until March 27, 2019, the trial court ordered that Timothy pay $2,600 per
month for child support. Id. at 19. From March 28, 2019, forward, Timothy was
required to pay child support in the amount of $1,921.91. Id.
-13-
Case No. 14-19-18
{¶15} Patricia argues that the trial court erred by applying the new statutory
calculations after the effective date of the statute rather than continuing the prior
amount of $2,600. Patricia claims that this denied her “the right to obtain a case-
by-case analysis of Father’s child support ‘obligation’”. Appellant’s Brief at 10. In
support of this argument, Patricia cites to R.C. 1.58.
The reenactment, amendment, or repeal of a statute does not,
except as provided in division (B) of this section:
(1) Affect the prior operation of the statute or any prior action
taken thereunder;
(2) Affect any validation, cure, right, privilege, obligation, or
liability previously acquired, accrued, accorded, or incurred
thereunder;
(3) Affect any violation thereof or penalty, forfeiture, or
punishment incurred in respect thereto, prior to the amendment
or repeal;
(4) Affect any investigation, proceeding, or remedy in respect of
any such privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or
punishment; and the investigation, proceeding, or remedy may be
instituted, continued, or enforced, and the penalty, forfeiture, or
punishment imposed, as if the statute had not been repealed or
amended.
R.C. 1.58(A). A review of the record shows that Patricia’s argument fails.
{¶16} First, this court notes that the trial court did not apply the amended
statute retroactively, but only prospectively. Patricia was given the benefit of a case-
by-case determination from the beginning of the case until the effective date of the
statute. The trial court only applied the calculation worksheet prospectively and
only after the effective date of the statute. Before the effective date of the statute,
-14-
Case No. 14-19-18
there was no applicable worksheet. See Guagenti v. Guagenti, 3d Dist. Allen No.
1-16-47, 2017 -Ohio- 2706, 90 N.E.3d 297. Thus, the trial court did not use the
incorrect worksheet.
{¶17} Second, the prior statute allowed the trial court to consider any factors
in determining the appropriate amount of child support on a case-by-case basis. “A
trial court has considerable discretion related to the calculation of child support, and,
absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb a child support
order.” Clark v. Clark, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-15-09, 2015-Ohio-3818, ¶ 28, citing
Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (1997).
Under R.C. 3119.04(B), “domestic relations courts have more
discretion in computing child support when the parents'
combined income is greater than $150,000 annually.” * * * This
statute “neither contains nor references any factors to guide the
court's determination in setting the amount of child support;
instead, the court must determine child support on a case-by-case
basis.” * * * Thus, R.C. 3119.04(B) “leaves the determination
entirely to the court's discretion, unless the court awards less than
the amount of child support listed for combined incomes of
$150,000.”
Guagenti, supra at ¶ 76 (citations omitted). The minimum support as determined
by the worksheet would have Timothy paying $1,330.17 per month. See Doc. 94 at
Ex. A. Pursuant to R.C. former 3119.04(B), any amount of support in excess of this
amount is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court. Guagenti, supra. Without
any set factors, the trial court could reasonably have concluded that a new
calculation, as determined appropriate by the state legislature, was an acceptable
-15-
Case No. 14-19-18
factor to consider and used it to determine the appropriate amount of child support.
We note that the new calculated amount is still in excess of the minimum support
established by the prior version of the statute and thus would have been acceptable
under the case-by-case evaluation.
{¶18} Finally, there is no prejudice in the trial court’s ruling. Were we to
remand, the trial court would be required to use the new applicable worksheet for
the calculation of child support. Sweeney v. Sweeney, 1st Dist. Hamilton C-180076,
2019-Ohio-1750, ¶ 46, 135 N.E.2d 1189. In Sweeney, the original decree of
dissolution and child support order was made in November 2008. Id. at ¶ 2. Child
support was subsequently modified in 2011. Id. In 2017, the father filed for a
reallocation of parental rights and a modification of child support. Id. at ¶ 3. The
trial court granted the motion to modify child support in January 2018. Id. at ¶ 15.
The father subsequently appealed the order of child support and made several claims
including that the trial court used the incorrect worksheet to calculate the amount of
support. Id. at ¶ 44. The appellate court noted that upon remand, “the trial court’s
calculations will be governed by the provisions of H.B. No. 366.” Id. at ¶ 46. Like
in Sweeney, the motion here was filed before the amendments to the statutes.
However, the remand would be after the effective date of the statute. Thus, any new
calculations would need to be done in accord with the statute.
{¶19} Even if we were to agree with Patricia that the trial court abused its
discretion, remand for determination on a case-by-case basis, and the trial court
-16-
Case No. 14-19-18
granted child support in the amount of $2,600 per month, the result would be a waste
of judicial resources.
If an obligor or obligee under a child support order requests that
the court modify the amount of child support required to be paid
pursuant to the child support order, the court shall recalculate the
amount of support that would be required to be paid under the
child support order in accordance with the schedule and the
applicable worksheet. If that amount as recalculated is more than
ten per cent greater than or more than ten per cent less than the
amount of child support required to be paid pursuant to the
existing child support order, the deviation from the recalculated
amount that would be required to be paid under the schedule and
the applicable worksheet shall be considered by the court as a
change of circumstance substantial enough to require a
modification of the child support amount.
R.C. 3119.79(A). If the child support calculation showed a difference of greater
than $260 (ten percent of $2,600), then Timothy would be entitled to a modification
of child support by law. The current worksheet shows a calculation of $1,921.91,
which is a difference of $678.09. See Doc. 94 at Ex. B. This amount exceeds $260,
so he would be entitled to a modification as a matter of law. Having determined
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating child support, the first
assignment of error is overruled.
Denial of Attorney Fees
{¶20} In the third assignment of error, Patricia claims that the trial court erred
by denying her request for attorney fees.
In any post-decree motion or proceeding that arises out of an
action for divorce, dissolution, legal separation, or annulment of
marriage or an appeal of that motion or proceeding, the court
-17-
Case No. 14-19-18
may award all or part of reasonable attorney's fees and litigation
expenses to either party if the court finds the award equitable. In
determining whether an award is equitable, the court may
consider the parties' income, the conduct of the parties, and any
other relevant factors the court deems appropriate, but it may not
consider the parties' assets.
R.C. 3105.73(B). A determination as to whether to award attorney fees in a
domestic relations case is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not
be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Cichanowicz v. Cichanowicz,
3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-13-05, 2013-Ohio-5657, ¶ 92. An abuse of discretion is a
decision in which the trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Id.{¶21} The statute only requires the trial court to determine whether an award
would be equitable and provides a partial list of factors to consider. R.C.
3105.73(B). However, the statute also allows the trial court to consider any other
relevant factors. Id. Here, the trial court noted that the only remedy Timothy had
for the administrative agency’s modification of his child support was to file an
appeal with the trial court. The trial court also noted that Timothy prevailed on his
motion as the amount of his child support was reduced from the agency’s
recommendation. The administrative review set Timothy’s monthy child support
payment at $3,221.71. Doc. 54. Both the magistrate and the trial court found this
amount to be too high and reduced the amount by several hundred dollars. The
trial court considered the income of the parties and determined that both had
-18-
Case No. 14-19-18
“substantial income”. The trial court also noted that Patricia had also filed motions
to modify the shared parenting order, thus also seeking court intervention.
Specifically, the trial court found it “inequitable that an individual in [Timothy’s]
position, who by statute must resort to Court review of a CSEA Order, should be
required to pay for the other party’s attorney fees regarding issues raised outside the
scope of the original Court requested review.” Doc. 94 at 20. A review of the record
shows there was competent, credible evidence to support the conclusions of the trial
court. The decision of the trial court was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unconscionable. Thus, this court does not find that the trial court abused its
discretion. The third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶22} Having found no prejudice in the particulars assigned and argued, the
judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/hls
-19-