Page v. Page

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 411

Syllabus

The trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellee was not voluntarily underemployed it incorrectly referenced the particular industry in which appellee was employed and then improperly took judicial notice of a fact about that industry, in violation of Evid.R. 201(B). As a result, the court's decision was not supported by sound reasoning. In addition, the court erred in making the child support modification effective as of the date that appellee filed his motion. When appellee filed the motion to modify child support, the circumstances were unchanged, both as to appellee's income and his parenting time, from what they were when the parties previously filed an agreed child support order. The sole event of significance to the litigation, if any, was appellee's choice to take a position paying substantially less. This choice occurred nearly a year after appellee filed the motion to reduce his child support. Consequently, if any modification in support were to be made, the latter date is the one that should be used. The court's decision in this regard, therefore, was also based on unsound reasoning. Judgment reversed and remanded.