Frey v. Frey

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District, Hancock County · 2015 · Family Law

Family LawChild Support Modificationchild supportmodificationR.C. 3119.79R.C. 3119.05(A)income verification10 percent deviation

Facts

The parties previously entered an August 4, 2010 consent judgment under which Kimberly agreed to pay Rick $356.57 per month in child support, plus an amount toward an overpayment. In December 2014, Rick moved to modify Kimberly's support obligations, claiming he had been injured in a workplace accident, could not work, and wanted Kimberly to pay child support and provide the children's health insurance. At the hearing, Rick testified that he was receiving $242 per week in workers' compensation benefits and that he previously earned about $2,200 to $2,400 per month. He admitted he brought no documentation of those benefits other than his workers' compensation card number.

Issue

May a trial court modify a voluntarily agreed child support order based on the movant's testimony alone about reduced income, without the income documentation required by R.C. 3119.05(A)? More specifically, was there sufficient proof of a substantial change in circumstances under R.C. 3119.79 to justify modifying Kimberly's child support obligation?

Rule

When a party seeks modification of child support, the trial court must determine each parent's income and verify income by electronic means or suitable documents under R.C. 3119.05(A), not by testimony alone. If the existing order was based on the parties' voluntary agreement, R.C. 3119.79(A) and (C) require the court to find both a substantial change of circumstances and that the change was not contemplated at the time of the prior order. A substantial change of circumstances exists when the recalculated child support amount deviates by at least ten percent from the existing order. The burden of proving the change rests on the party seeking modification.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Maya Rowan and Derek Sloan entered a consent child support order three years ago. Derek now moves to increase Maya’s support obligation, claiming a back injury cut his earnings, but at the hearing he offers only his own testimony about the amount of temporary disability payments he receives.

Should the domestic relations court grant the modification based on Derek’s testimony alone?

Explanation. The movant bears the burden to prove a substantial change of circumstances. To determine whether such a change exists, the court must determine each parent’s income and verify it through electronic means or suitable documents under the statute. Testimony alone is insufficient, so the court cannot properly find the required change in circumstances on that record. (Derived from Frey v. Frey (n.d.).)