Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3123.14 (2026)

Collecting arrearage where order is terminated

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a child support order is terminated for any reason, the obligor under the child support order is or was at any time in default under the support order and, after the termination of the order, the obligor owes an arrearage under the order, the obligee may make application to the child support enforcement agency that administered the child support order prior to its termination or had authority to administer the child support order to maintain any administrative or judicial action or proceeding to enforce the order on behalf of the obligee to obtain relief. If a withholding or deduction notice is issued pursuant to section 3121.03 of the Revised Code to collect an arrearage, the amount withheld or deducted from the obligor's personal earnings, income, or accounts shall be rebuttably presumed to be at least equal to the amount that was withheld or deducted under the terminated child support order. A court or agency administering the child support order may consider evidence of household expenditures, income variables, extraordinary health care issues, and other reasons for deviation from the presumed amount.

The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: In re Rummel, 954 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Rummel, 954 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011). · cites it 11× “{¶ 19} The father argues in his second assignment of error that R.C. 3123.14 is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Section 303 of the CCPA, 15 U.”
Curran v. Kelly, 2012-Ohio-218. · cites it 5× “Kelly challenges the domestic relations court’s application of R.C. 3123.14 in rendering its judgment. “An appellate court’s review of the interpretation and application of a statute is de novo [and we may] not give deference to a trial court’s determination [in that regard.”
Baldwin v. Baldwin, 2026-Ohio-1852. · cites it 3× “Lyons, at ¶ 31; R.C. 3123.14. See also O.A.C. 5101:12-50-50 (amplifying the judicial enforcement procedures the CSEA may take under R.”
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.