Shelby L. Hubbard, Plaintiff-Appellant,
David J. Hubbard, Defendant-Appellee.
from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of
Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch (C.P.C. No. 07DR-1077)
L. Hubbard, pro se.
Law Office of Nicholas W. Yaeger, LLC, and Nicholas W.
Yaeger, for appellee.
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Shelby L. Hubbard, appeals
from a decision and judgment entry of the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations,
Juvenile Branch, overruling Shelby's objections to a
magistrate's decision. For the following reasons, we
overrule Shelby's assignments of error and affirm the
decision of the trial court.
2} Shelby and defendant-appellee, David J. Hubbard,
divorced in 2008. They had two children together. Both
objected to an October 5, 2017 administrative adjustment
recommendation from the Franklin County Child Support
Enforcement Agency increasing David's child support
amount. The magistrate conducted a hearing addressing those
objections in January 2018. In a March 2018 decision, the
magistrate raised David's support obligations from
$392.47 to $688.91. Only Shelby objected to the
3} The trial court described and addressed
Shelby's objections as follows:
(1) The magistrate failed to check the box to make her
recommendation immediately viable. The trial court held the
box was properly unchecked because the magistrate did not
make a finding that immediate relief was justified. The trial
court also held that the issue became moot when the trial
court issued its decision.
(2) The magistrate failed to include advancements on
David's inheritance when calculating his income. The
trial court held the magistrate specifically included those
amounts on her child support computation worksheet.
(3) The magistrate erred in finding inheritance income was
not gross income. The trial court held the magistrate
properly labeled inheritance as non-taxable income under R.C.
(4) The magistrate erred in not deviating from standard
worksheet factors when determining David's income because
of his alleged "misconduct, undisclosed income, assets,
perjuring [sic] and refusal to comply with
discovery." The trial court held those grounds for
deviation did not exist under statute and, to the extent they
did, Shelby proffered insufficient evidence establishing
those grounds were present here.
(5) The magistrate erred in not including David's
"self-generated income" in the form of
reimbursement for mileage, free meals at the restaurants he
managed, two cars gifted from his grandfather, and money
gifted to David to pay for their daughter's private
schooling. The trial court held Shelby presented insufficient
evidence as to all grounds. The trial court also held the
magistrate was in the best position to address credibility
regarding conflicting mileage testimony.
(6) The magistrate erred in finding Shelby voluntarily
unemployed. The trial court held she failed to present
sufficient evidence that the daughter's 20 medical
appointments per year ...