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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Mossing-Landers v. Landers, 2016 Ohio 7625 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · 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. 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “” R.C. 3119.03. {¶33} Pursuant to R.C. 3119.”
Berthelot v. Berthelot, 796 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “R.C. 3119.03. This court has held, however, that R.”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017 Ohio 8624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “R.C. 3119.03." Warner v. Warner , 3d Dist.”
Habtemariam v. Worku, 2020 Ohio 3044 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “R.C. 3119.03. See Wood v. Wood, 10th Dist.”
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018 Ohio 1880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “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. 2005). “R.C. 3119.03; Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.”
Gentile v. Gentile, 2013 Ohio 1338 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “R.C. 3119.03; Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.”
Collins v. Collins, 2011 Ohio 2087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “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.