Eickelberger v. Eickelberger
| Decision Date | 22 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CA93-06-102,CA93-06-102 |
| Parties | EICKELBERGER, Appellant, v. EICKELBERGER, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Fred S. Miller, Hamilton, for appellant.
James Gedling, Hamilton, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant, Thomas L. Eickelberger, appeals the judgment of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting him a divorce from defendant-appellee, Stephanie J. Eickelberger. Appellant sets forth two assignments of error as follows:
Appellant filed a complaint for divorce on January 21, 1992, after eleven years of marriage. The parties have two minor children. Appellant works as a fireman for the city of Hamilton and earns $36,000 per year. Appellee is a nurse and earns $30,000 per year.
Appellant argues under his first assignment of error that the court should have awarded him child support, since he is the residential parent of the children for nine months of the year. He also argues that the trial court should not have split the children's tax exemptions between the parties.
In a decision issued November 2, 1992, the trial court adopted a shared-parenting plan granting residential parent status to appellant during the school year and to appellee during the summer months. Both parents have modified Schedule B visitation. The shared-parenting plan also provides in part:
A shared-parenting plan must include all factors relevant to the care of children, including the provision of child support. R.C. 3109.04(G). The trial court may order either or both parents to pay child support. R.C. 3109.05. In determining an appropriate amount of child support, the trial court must comply with R.C. 3113.21 to 3113.219, and must consider all relevant factors including:
"(j) The value of services contributed by the residential parent." R.C. 3109.05(A)(1).
R.C. 3113.215 lays out the basic child support guidelines. R.C. 3113.215(B)(3) addresses the court's ability to deviate from the basic guidelines and provides in part:
R.C. 3113.215(B)(6) states with respect to shared-parenting plans:
"If the court issues a shared parenting order in accordance with section 3109.04 of the Revised Code, the court shall order an amount of child support to be paid under the child support order that is calculated in accordance with the schedule and with the worksheet set forth in division (E) of this section through line 18, except that, if the application of the schedule * * * and the worksheet, through line 18, would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of the extraordinary circumstances of the parents or because of any other factors or criteria set forth in division (B)(3) of this section, the court may deviate from the amount of child support that would be ordered in accordance with the schedule and worksheet * * *." (Emphasis added.)
According to this court's calculations, appellant would be entitled to $2,448 a year or $47 weekly, under the basic child support guidelines. The total annual combined child support obligation of the parties comes to $12,240 based on their combined income of $66,000. See R.C. 3113.215(D). Appellant, who earns fifty- percent of the parties' combined income, is responsible for $6,732 of the parties' support obligation compared to appellee's obligation of $5,508. Since appellant is the residential parent nine out of twelve months of the year, theoretically he should draw three-fourths of the funds in the combined child support pool; this comes to $9,180. Subtracting his personal child support obligation of $6,732 from $9,180 leaves $2,448. This is the amount of yearly child support the court could have awarded to appellant under the basic child support guidelines.
In domestic relations actions, however, the trial court must have broad discretion to fashion a decree that is equitable based on the facts and circumstances of each case. See Kunkle v. Kunkle (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 554 N.E.2d 83. In this case, the parties stipulated that the cost of the children's parochial education would be shared in proportion to their relative incomes. Both parties are required to carry medical insurance for the children and any uncovered medical expenses are to be divided by the parties. The shared-parenting order also requires the parties to share the cost of clothing, school supplies and other ordinary expenses. In light of these court-ordered payments and in-kind contributions, the trial court could properly determine that strict application of the child support guidelines would be inappropriate. See R.C. 3113.215(B)(3)(c), (B)(6).
Appellant argues that the shared-parenting order encourages "excessive entanglement between the parties" because it requires the parties to cooperate and communicate by sharing expenses. There is no evidence, however, that the parties are unable to cooperate in this matter.
While the trial court's plan does require the parties to cooperate to a greater extent than would be necessary under strict application of the basic child support guidelines, the plan offers certain advantages. Sharing actual expenses provides for a more accurate division of child support than payment of a predetermined amount pursuant to the guidelines. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the basic child support guidelines do not take into account that appellee, as a residential parent during the summer, must maintain suitable housing for two minor children year round. Because the parties incur fixed costs in maintaining suitable housing for the children year round, the total amount the parties spend supporting the children exceeds the amount called for under the basic guidelines. See Looker v. Looker (Dec. 29, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1064, unreported, at 3, 1992 WL 394860. Appellant, who earns $6,000 more annually than appellee, may be better able to absorb some of these additional fixed costs.
Appellant also argues under his first assignment that the trial court erred in splitting the children's tax exemptions between the parties. The trial court has broad discretion to allocate tax exemptions between parents. See Hughes v. Hughes (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 165, 518 N.E.2d 1213. Based on the facts in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allocating one tax exemption to each parent.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances by adopting a shared-parenting order that required the parties to share certain expenses according to their relative incomes. Therefore, the trial court did not err in not strictly applying the child support guidelines and refusing to order appellee to pay appellant child support. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
Under appellant's second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by dividing the parties' pension and retirements funds without considering appellee's Social Security benefits. A hearing on property division was held on January 15, 1993. Appellant had a Police and Fireman's Pension Plan valued at $25,664...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrester v. Forrester
...A.2d 354, 357 (Del. 1977). 39. Cornbleth v. Cornbleth, 397 Pa.Super. 421, 580 A.2d 369, 371-72 (1990). 40. Eickelberger v. Eickelberger, 93 Ohio App.3d 221, 638 N.E.2d 130, 135 (1994). 41. 13 Del. C. § 1513(a); J.D.P. v. F.J.H., 399 A.2d 207, 210 (Del.1979). The statute also allows the Fami......
-
Jackson v. Sollie
...... in violation of the Social Security Act's anti-assignment provision.”) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) ); Eickelberger v. Eickelberger, 93 Ohio App.3d 221, 638 N.E.2d 130, 135 (12 Dist.1994) (“As a matter of public policy, a trial court should consider one spouse's Social Security benefits b......
-
Webster v. Webster
...v. Kelly, 198 Ariz. 307, 9 P.3d 1046 (2000); Panetta v. Panetta, 370 N.J.Super. 486, 851 A.2d 720 (2004); Eickelberger v. Eickelberger, 93 Ohio App.3d 221, 638 N.E.2d 130 (1994); and Cornbleth v. Cornbleth, 397 Pa.Super. 421, 580 A.2d 369 (1990) (cases allowing offset without discussion of ......
-
In re Marriage of Crook
...Social Security income, trial court may consider Social Security income when dividing marital property); Eickelberger v. Eickelberger, 93 Ohio App.3d 221, 638 N.E.2d 130 (1994) (although future Social Security benefit cannot be divided as a marital asset, it must be evaluated and considered......
-
Child-Related Exemptions, Credits and Deductions
...Also, the exemptions may be split between father and mother where there is more than one child. In Eickelberger v. Eickelberger , 93 Ohio App. 3d 221, 638 N.E. 2d 130 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. 1994), the trial court was affirmed in holding that the father was entitled to an exemption for one chil......
-
§ 12.02 Types of Benefits
...120 Ohio App.3d 496, 698 N.E.2d 465 (1997); Neel v. Neel, 113 Ohio App.3d 24, 680 N.E.2d 207 (1996); Eickelberger v. Eickelberger, 638 N.E.2d 130 (Ohio App. 1994); Smith v. Smith, 91 Ohio App.3d 248, 632 N.E.2d 555 (1993). Pennsylvania: Twilla v. Twilla, 664 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Super. 1995); Cor......