Martindale v. Martindale

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District, Athens County · 2019 · Family Law

Family Lawchild supportspousal supportvoluntary underemploymentfinancial misconductaccess to children's recordschild supportgross income

Facts

The parties disputed the husband’s income for child-support and spousal-support purposes after he left the Marine Corps and operated two businesses. The husband testified that after separating from the military he hoped to begin drawing a $50,000 annual salary from his businesses, and he introduced 2015 and 2016 tax returns showing business losses. The wife argued that the businesses actually generated income and that the husband failed to substantiate his claimed expenses and cost of goods sold. The trial court found the husband’s tax returns and testimony credible, found he was not voluntarily underemployed, used his military income until separation and $50,000 thereafter, denied spousal support, found no proven financial misconduct, and declined to restrict his access to the children’s records.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by treating the husband’s anticipated $50,000 business salary as income without finding him voluntarily underemployed, by refusing to find him voluntarily underemployed after his separation from the military, by relying on his tax returns to calculate self-employment income, by denying spousal support and additional sanctions, and by declining to restrict his access to the children’s records?

Rule

For child support, a trial court may impute income only if it first finds the parent voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. But gross income under R.C. 3119.01(C)(12) broadly includes potential cash flow from any source, including self-employment. Whether a parent is voluntarily underemployed and how to calculate income are fact-specific matters committed to the trial court’s broad discretion. A spouse seeking a distributive award for financial misconduct bears the burden to prove clear misconduct or substantial and willful nondisclosure, and a nonresidential parent is entitled to access a child’s records unless the court finds access contrary to the child’s best interest.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, Dana Pierce and Owen Pierce are litigating child support. Owen recently left a salaried logistics job and now runs a small online parts business through Buckeye Harbor Supply LLC; he testifies that the business is not yet profitable on paper but that he expects to begin taking $48,000 per year in owner draws within months. The trial court finds Owen is not voluntarily underemployed but uses $48,000 in the worksheet, once calling it “imputed income.”

If Dana appeals, which argument is strongest under the majority rule?

Explanation. A court may impute income only after finding voluntary unemployment or underemployment. But gross income is broad and includes potential cash flow from any source, including self-employment. The majority held that a trial court’s label is not controlling; if the substance of the ruling shows the amount reflects anticipated business withdrawals or potential cash flow, no voluntary-underemployment finding is required.