(A) A withholding or deduction notice described in section 3121.03 of the Revised Code or an order to collect current support due under a support order and any arrearage owed by the obligor under a support order pertaining to the same child or spouse shall be rebuttably presumed to provide that the arrearage amount collected with each payment of current support equal at least twenty per cent of the current support payment.
(B) A court or administrative hearing officer may consider evidence of household expenditures, income variables, extraordinary health care issues, and other reasons for a deviation from the twenty per cent presumption.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2009–2015 · leading case: Hayman v. Hayman, 919 N.E.2d 797 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Hayman v. Hayman, 919 N.E.2d 797 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3ד” I {¶ 37} Appellant, in his first assignment of error, argues that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining the monthly child-support arrearage to be paid by appellant based on the requirements of R.C. 3123.21. *103 {¶ 38} Appellant specifically argues…”
Lepowsky v. Lepowsky, 2010-Ohio-1544. · cites it 5דpousal support award, we reverse the trial court’s determination and modify the amount of the original spousal support award to $3,000 (plus a 2% administrative fee), to be applied retroactively to the date of the divorce decree and to continue for an unlimited duration, and…”
Levy v. Levy, 2014-Ohio-2650. “{¶51} R.C. 3123.21 provides as follows: (A) A withholding or deduction notice described in section 3121.”
In re C.S.M., 2015-Ohio-4608. · cites it 2ד{¶ 32} R.C. 3123.21(A) provides that “an order to collect * * * any arrearage owed by the obligor under a support order * * * shall be rebuttably presumed to provide that the arrearage amount collected with each payment of current support equal at least twenty per cent of the…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3123.21(A): 2 cases
Lepowsky v. Lepowsky, 2010-Ohio-1544. “pousal support award, we reverse the trial court’s determination and modify the amount of the original spousal support award to $3,000 (plus a 2% administrative fee), to be applied retroactively to the date of the divorce decree and to continue for an unlimited duration, and…”
In re C.S.M., 2015-Ohio-4608. “{¶ 32} R.C. 3123.21(A) provides that “an order to collect * * * any arrearage owed by the obligor under a support order * * * shall be rebuttably presumed to provide that the arrearage amount collected with each payment of current support equal at least twenty per cent of the…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3123.21(B): 3 cases
Hayman v. Hayman, 919 N.E.2d 797 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “” I {¶ 37} Appellant, in his first assignment of error, argues that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining the monthly child-support arrearage to be paid by appellant based on the requirements of R.C. 3123.21. *103 {¶ 38} Appellant specifically argues…”
Lepowsky v. Lepowsky, 2010-Ohio-1544. “pousal support award, we reverse the trial court’s determination and modify the amount of the original spousal support award to $3,000 (plus a 2% administrative fee), to be applied retroactively to the date of the divorce decree and to continue for an unlimited duration, and…”
In re C.S.M., 2015-Ohio-4608. “{¶ 32} R.C. 3123.21(A) provides that “an order to collect * * * any arrearage owed by the obligor under a support order * * * shall be rebuttably presumed to provide that the arrearage amount collected with each payment of current support equal at least twenty per cent of the…”
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.