 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gupta v. Gupta7/28/2000
amily counseling.
Furthermore, the statute specifically states that a spouse must engage in "financial misconduct." Financial misconduct implies some type of wrongdoing such as interference with the other spouse's property rights. Kita v. Kita (Nov. 24, 1999), Summit App. No. 19256, unreported, Hammond v. Brown (Sept. 14, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67268, unreported. While there is no question that the appellant engaged in misconduct, we do not believe that his actions constituted "financial misconduct." Certainly the appellee was embarrassed and felt betrayed by the appellant's actions, but this is not the type of misconduct the statute provides compensation for. Allowing such would add an element of fault into divorce proceedings, in direct contravention of Ohio's no-fault divorce provisions. The trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the appellant committed financial misconduct.
Accordingly, the appellant's first assignment of error is sustained.
Assignment of Error No. 2
The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law when it determined to impute income when it failed to consider the Ohio Revised Code ยง3113.215 in determining the amount of support.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred by finding that he is underemployed and imputing income to him. For the following reasons, we disagree.
R.C. 3113.215 governs the calculation of child support and includes definitions to assist in determining parents' income. Specifically, R.C. 3113.215(A)(1)(b) defines income "for a parent who is unemployed or underemployed, the sum of the gross income of the parent, and any potential income of the parent."
"Potential income," pursuant to R.C. 3113.215(A)(5), is defined as: (a) imputed income that the court * * * determines the parent would have earned if fully employed as determined from the parent's employment potential and probable earnings based on the parent's recent work history, the parent's occupational qualifications, and the prevailing job opportunities in the community in which the parent resides;
The Ohio Supreme Court, applying R.C. 3113.215, has held that the questions of "whether a parent is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed" and "the amount of potential income to be imputed" are determinations within the trial court's discretion and will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. Rock v. Cabral (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 112; Marsh v. Marsh (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 747. An abuse of discretion connotes an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217. Furthermore, the parent's subjective motivations for being voluntarily unemployed or underemployed play no part in the determination whether potential income is to be imputed to that parent in calculating his or her support obligation. Rock, 67 Ohio St.3d at 111; Marsh, 105 Ohio App.3d at 750.
In view of the above-stated law, we must review the imputation of income to the appellant. The evidence reveals that the appellant made approximately $341,429 in 1994, $261,681 in 1995, $13,009 in 1996, and $168,549 in 1997. The trial court held that there was no concrete evidence presented as to the appellant's income in 1998. However, there was testimony that projected his income to be approximately $27,000. The trial court considered the appellant's past work history, as well as the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the appellant's occupational opportunities. The court concluded that the appellant was underemployed and imputed income of $200,000 per year to the appellant. The findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence and fai
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|