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.

Hubbard v. Hubbard

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

July 30, 2019

Shelby L. Hubbard, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David J. Hubbard, Defendant-Appellee.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch (C.P.C. No. 07DR-1077)

         On brief:

          Shelby L. Hubbard, pro se.

          The Law Office of Nicholas W. Yaeger, LLC, and Nicholas W. Yaeger, for appellee.

          DECISION

          BEATTY BLUNT, J.

         {¶ 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 magistrate's decision.

         {¶ 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. 3119.01(C)(7)(e).
(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 ...

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.