In any action or proceeding in which the court determines the amount of child support that will be ordered to be paid pursuant to a child support order or at any time a child support enforcement agency determines the amount of child support that will be paid pursuant to an administrative child support order, the amount of child support that would be payable under a child support order, as calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and applicable worksheet through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support due.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108
cases (31 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Mossing-Landers v. Landers, 2016-Ohio-7625, 73 N.E.3d 1060.
Mossing-Landers v. Landers, 2016-Ohio-7625, 73 N.E.3d 1060. · cites it 2דInstead, the issue was the trial court’s failure to complete a child support worksheet and its decision to deviate from the statutorily presumed -21- amount of support in R.C. 3119.03 without making any factual findings to support its decision.”
Michael v. Michael, 2021-Ohio-992. · cites it 3ד{¶36} “R.C. 3119.03 establishes a rebuttable presumption that the child support obligation calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and applicable worksheet is the correct amount of child support due.”
Ayers v. Ayers, 2022-Ohio-403. · cites it 2דUsing the statutorily proscribed basic child support schedule and applicable worksheet, the trial 9. court ordered appellant to pay a total of $1,390.”
Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 828 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005). “*577 {¶ 38} Pursuant to R.C. 3119.03, “the amount of child support that would be payable under a child support order, as calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and applicable worksheet through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, is rebuttably…”
In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-2748. “” R.C. 3119.03. {¶33} Pursuant to R.C. 3119.”
Berthelot v. Berthelot, 796 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2003). “R.C. 3119.03. This court has held, however, that R.”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915. “R.C. 3119.03." Warner v. Warner , 3d Dist.”
Habtemariam v. Worku, 2020-Ohio-3044. “R.C. 3119.03. See Wood v. Wood, 10th Dist.”
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018-Ohio-1880. “Pursuant to R.C. 3119.03, the presumption that that the child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and applicable worksheet is rebuttable.”
Hurte v. Hurte, 842 N.E.2d 1058 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005). “R.C. 3119.03; Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.”
Gentile v. Gentile, 2013-Ohio-1338. “R.C. 3119.03; Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.”
Collins v. Collins, 2011-Ohio-2087. “023; R.C. 3119.03. {¶24} R.C. 3119.01(C)(5) defines “income” as used in Chapter 3119 as: “(a) For a parent who is employed to full capacity, the gross income of the parent; “(b) For a parent who is unemployed or underemployed, the sum of the gross income of the parent and any…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.