Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bain v. McFadden

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District

September 27, 2006

STEPHEN E. BAIN Appellant
v.
MARY MCFADDEN Appellee

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 2000-07-6945

JOHN M. DOHNER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

TIMOTHY J. TRUBY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

GARY ROSEN, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

CARLA MOORE FOR THE COURT

This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:

{¶1} Appellant, Stephen Bain, appeals from the decision of the Summit County Domestic Relations Court. This Court reverses in part and affirms in part.

I.

{¶2} Appellant and Appellee, Mary McFadden, became involved in a relationship which resulted in the birth of a child, M.B., born November 1, 1997. The parties never married and never resided together. Both parties acknowledged parentage and Appellee became the residential parent. On November 10, 1999, the parties entered into a Shared Parenting Plan and a Confidential Settlement Agreement (collectively referred to herein as "Agreement"). The Agreement was accepted and made the order of the Juvenile Court on February 28, 2000.

{¶3} Around the time the parties met, Appellant had recently retired from a business he co-owned with his brother. Appellant and his brother sold their business in the mid-1990's. The sale of the business provided Appellant with sufficient assets to effectively retire. Appellant estimated that his investments would provide income of $250, 000 or more per year. Appellant is currently unemployed.

{¶4} Appellee worked intermittently as an exotic dancer. Appellant contends that Appellee has earned a yearly income of between $75, 000 and $125, 000 through her work as an exotic dancer. Appellee denies ever earning that much income. She does not have any college education and is currently pursuing a career in court reporting.

{¶5} Pursuant to the parties' Agreement, Appellant purchased a home in Hudson for Appellee and their child, as well as a Jaguar automobile. The parties agreed to a fair market value of $180, 000 for the home and $25, 000 for the vehicle. Pursuant to the Agreement, Appellant received credit toward any future child support of $1500 per month for the house and $200 per month for the vehicle. In addition, Appellant agreed to pay Appellee $2500 per month in support. Thus, Appellant's child support payments totaled $4500 per month. The Agreement additionally provided that Appellant would not seek modification of the child support order under any condition prior to April 1, 2001. The Agreement further stated that after April 1, 2001, any modification would be based on the adjusted gross income of the parties as shown on their prior year IRS form 1040 and that Appellant could not initiate a modification unless his gross income for the year fell below $300, 000.

{¶6} In July of 2000, this case was transferred from the Juvenile Division to the Domestic Relations Division. On December 3, 2004, Appellant filed a motion to modify his child support obligation, asserting that the child support should be recalculated to the parties' present income levels. Appellant specifically contended that the $1500 per month and $200 per month payments should be sufficient support payments and requested that the monthly payments of $2500 be terminated.

{¶7} On January 14, 2005 and April 29, 2005, the magistrate held hearings regarding Appellant's motion. Both parties testified. On May 10, 2005, the magistrate issued her decision modifying Appellant's support obligations from $2500 per month to $945.88 per month. On May 16, 2005, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and made it the order of the trial court. Appellant timely filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court overruled Appellant's objections on September 6, 2005 and ordered that, effective December 3, 2004, Appellant pay $964.80 per month. Appellant timely appealed that decision, raising two assignments of error for our review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CREDIT [] APPELLANT WITH THE FULL AMOUNT OF HIS PREPAID ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.