needs standard in Ohio

2018Cuyahoga No. 88310, 2007-Ohio-2643, ¶ 31 ; Brownlee v. Brownlee, 8th Dist.

2009We are unpersuaded by Eddy's reliance on Siebert v. Tavarez , Cuyahoga App. No. 88310, 2007-Ohio-2643 , in which we recognized the same statutory construction, but found the trial court had failed to utilize R.C. 3119.04 in rendering its child support determination. {¶ 18} In this case, the trial court complied with the statute in making its child support determination insofar as the court examined the parties' finances, determined their combined income exceeded $150,000, and assessed the needs and standard of living of the children.

2020Trumbull No. 2010-T-0104, 2011-Ohio- 15 3629, ¶14, quoting Moore v. Moore, 182 Ohio App.3d 708 , 2009–Ohio–2434, ¶19 (3d Dist.). {¶64} Here, the record shows the court considered the use of the extrapolation method but found that the evaluation of the standard of living and lifestyle of the children would have lived had the marriage continued was proper under the circumstances.

2018Moore v. Moore, 182 Ohio App.3d 708 , 2009- Ohio-2434, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.); Cyr v. Cyr, 8th Dist.

2019Summit No. 23581, 2007-Ohio-4531, ¶ 12 . {¶ 18} In addition, this court has held that the deviation factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23 “are also relevant to the court’s assessment of the proper amount of child support when it makes its case-by-case assessment under R.C. 3119.04.” Elam v. Elam, 2d Dist.

2007No. 23581, 2007-Ohio-4531 , at ¶ 12 , quoting Berthelot v. Berthelot , 154 Ohio App.3d 101 , 2003-Ohio-4519 , at ¶ 24 , quoting Birath v. Birath (1988), 53 Ohio App.3d 31 , 37 . {¶ 24} It is clear from the Magistrate's 48-page decision, as adopted by the trial court, that the trial court assessed the needs and standard of living of the Freeman children before ordering a combined support obligation of $97,371.06.

2019Cuyahoga No. 84335, 2005-Ohio-4424, ¶ 44 . {¶ 17} In determining an appropriate amount of child support, R.C. 3119.04(B) directs trial courts to make the determination on a “case-by-case basis” and to “consider the needs and standard of living of the children who are the subject of the child support -7- order and of the parents.” Many courts, including this one, have found that when 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 the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marr

2019Cuyahoga No. 84335, 2005-Ohio-4424, ¶ 44 . {¶ 14} In determining an appropriate amount of child support, R.C. 3119.04(B) directs trial courts to make the determination on a “case-by-case basis” and to “consider the needs and standard of living of the children who are the subject of the child support order and of the parents.” Sues at ¶ 17 , quoting R.C. 3119.04(B).

2014Further, “[a] child support 5 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. {¶13} “[W]hen the combined gross income of the parents exceeds $150,000, however, child support is determined under R.C. 3119.04(B),” stating: If the combined gross income of both parents is greater than one hundred fifty thousand dollars per year, the court * * * shall determine the amou

2005Id. {¶ 29} Furthermore, when the combined gross income of the parents is higher than $150,000, such as in the instant case, the statute mandates that the court determine the 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." R.C. 3113.215 (B)(2)(b).

2008No. 2-04-11, 2004-Ohio-5646 , ¶ 15 . {¶ 16} R.C. 3119.04 (B) relevantly provides: {¶ 17} "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 *Page 6 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.

2008No. 2-04-11, 2004-Ohio-5646 , ¶ 15 . {¶ 16} R.C. 3119.04 (B) relevantly provides: {¶ 17} "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 *Page 6 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.

2000In Frazier v. Daniels (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 425 , 429 , 693 N.E.2d 289 , 291-292 , this court held that, in setting support under this subsection, [T]he court shall (1) determine the amount of the obligor's child-support obligation on a case-by-case basis, (2) consider the needs and standard of living of the child and the parents, (3) compute a basic combined child-support obligation that is no less than the same percentage of the parents' combined annual income as is shown for $150,000, and (4) order that amount as child support unless the court determines that it would be unjust or inappro

2000In Frazier v. Daniels (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 425 , 429 , 693 N.E.2d 289 , 291-292 , this court held that, in setting support under this subsection, [T]he court shall (1) determine the amount of the obligor's child-support obligation on a case-by-case basis, (2) consider the needs and standard of living of the child and the parents, (3) compute a basic combined child-support obligation that is no less than the same percentage of the parents' combined annual income as is shown for $150,000, and (4) order that amount as child support unless the court determines that it would be unjust or inappro

2006More particularly, plaintiff contends the trial court erred "as a matter of law" in considering the case a "deviation" case and in failing to determine the child support obligation on a case-by-case basis as R.C. 3119.04 (B) requires. {¶ 40} R.C. 3119.04 (B) provides that "[i]f 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, * * * 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

2006The court found this amount "to be unjust, inappropriate and not in the best interests of the children given the needs and standard of living of the children and their parents, who have a combined income of $334,472.00." Id. {¶ 42} The trial court then observed that plaintiff submitted a monthly budget of $14,456, slightly more than one-half of which, or $7,527.43, she allocated as children's expenses.

2025There is no mention of R.C. 3119.04 anywhere in the trial court’s order. {¶22} Father argues that the trial court “clearly” abused its discretion by 9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS “incorrectly apply[ing] the standards set forth in the case law and fail[ing] to take into account the children’s needs and standard of living they were accustomed to during the marriage as well as in both households after the parties[’] separation.” In support of his argument, he points to V.C. v O.C., 2021-Ohio-1491 (8th Dist.), and In re J.C., 2021-Ohio-2451 (8th Dist.). {¶23} In V.C., the court held that

2024Geauga No. 2005-G-2610, 2006-Ohio-3080, ¶ 15 . {¶39} As this court stated in Haun, “R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) lists factors a court is required to consider upon assessing whether the spousal support award remains appropriate and reasonable.” Haun, 2019-Ohio-5408, at ¶ 32 .

2024Geauga No. 2005-G-2610, 2006-Ohio-3080, ¶ 15 . {¶39} As this court stated in Haun, “R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) lists factors a court is required to consider upon assessing whether the spousal support award remains appropriate and reasonable.” Haun, 2019-Ohio-5408, at ¶ 32 .

2022II. {¶10} Mr. Newstate’s first assignment of error challenges the trial court’s finding of voluntary underemployment in 2019 and 2020, thus imputing a potential income of $80,000 to him for those years. {¶11} “In calculating child support, a trial court must first determine the annual income for each parent.” Sweeney v. Sweeney, 2019-Ohio-1750 , 135 N.E.3d 1189 , ¶ 24 (1st Dist.).

2022No. 12AP-1042, 2014-Ohio-1252, ¶ 17 , the trial court's decision reflects "that the trial court simply relied on [its extra-statutory] child support worksheet calculation, rather than considering the needs and the standard of living of the child and the parties" as R.C. 3119.04 requires. {¶ 81} The trial court was not terribly sympathetic to April in analyzing her income for child support purposes.

2022We conclude that the trial court relied primarily on [its No. 21AP-276 32 version of] the child support calculation worksheet and abused its discretion by failing to conduct a case-by-case analysis of the needs and standard of living of the child and the parties." 2014-Ohio-1252, ¶ 17 . {¶ 92} Further, the trial court's ultimate order with regard to "Child Support" stated: "The effective date of the support order is January 1, 2020." Judgment Entry at 116.

2021Lorain No. 18CA011317, 2019-Ohio-903, ¶ 10 , quoting J.M. v. L.M., 9th Dist.

2020Grilliot-Saddler, 2018-Ohio-1689 at ¶ 16 ; Cyr v. Cyr, 8th Dist.

2020Mother asserts that the court erred in its determination of child support in six specific ways. {¶20} A. Retroactivity of Order {¶21} The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion by failing to make the child support order retroactive to the date of filing. 5 {¶22} R.C. 3119.84 allows the court to “modify an obligor’s duty to pay a support payment that becomes due after notice of a petition to modify the court support order has been given to each obligee and to the obligor before a final order concerning the petition for modification is entered.” This has been interpreted to “plainly state[

2020Summit No. 04CA008488, 2005-Ohio- 474, ¶36. “‘[I]n high-income cases, the support obligation calculated usually exceeds the amount actually required to provide for the children, but * * * allocating an amount to satisfy the standard of living requirement runs the risk of making the award “less like child support and more like an equalization of the incomes of the two household.”’” Pearlstein, supra, quoting Bryant v. Bryant, 5th Dist.

2019Lorain No. 17CA011126, 2018-Ohio-3417, ¶ 13 , quoting R.C. 3119.04(B).

2019Cuyahoga No. 84335, 2005-Ohio-4424, ¶ 44 . {¶ 17} In determining an appropriate amount of child support, R.C. 3119.04(B) directs trial courts to make the determination on a “case-by-case basis” and to “consider the needs and standard of living of the children who are the subject of the child support -7- order and of the parents.” Many courts, including this one, have found that when 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 the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marr

2019Cuyahoga No. 84335, 2005-Ohio-4424, ¶ 44 . {¶ 17} In determining an appropriate amount of child support, R.C. 3119.04(B) directs trial courts to make the determination on a “case-by-case basis” and to “consider the needs and standard of living of the children who are the subject of the child support -7- order and of the parents.” Many courts, including this one, have found that when 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 the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marr

2019“A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” Id. {¶ 20} In this case, Richardson claims that the trial court’s decision to upwardly deviate from the baseline amount of child support in R.C. 3119.04(B) was an abuse of discretion because the trial court failed to consider the needs and standard of living of the children.

2019Clark No. 2007-CA-135, 2009-Ohio-55, ¶ 11 . {¶ 14} R.C. 3119.04(B) provides as follows: 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.

2018No. 13AP- 369, 2013-Ohio-5778, ¶ 5 . {¶ 23} R.C. 3119.04(B) provides that if the combined income of the parties is greater than $150,000 per year, the court shall determine the child support amount on a case-by- case basis and shall consider the needs and the standard of living of the children and the parents.