Skip to main content

Rummelhoff v. Rummelhoff

Citations

  • 2021 Ohio 4579

Syllabus

DIVORCE - INTERVENING DECISION – CIV.R. 60(B)(5) – VEXATIOUS LITIGANT – R.C. 2323.52 – CHILD SUPPORT – DEVIATION – R.C. 3119.23 – EQUAL PARENTING – RELATIVE FINANCIAL RESOURCES – R.C. 3119.23(E) – IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS – R.C. 3119.23(I) – IMPUTED INCOME – UNDEREMPLOYMENT – ATTORNEY FEES – R.C. 3105.73(B) – CIV.R. 53(D)(6) – EX PARTE COMMUNICATION – JUD.COND.R. 2.9: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant-husband's Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment based on a purportedly intervening decision where the proffered decision did not state a rule of law in conflict with the court's decision, and was therefore not intervening. The question of whether the trial court should have considered a motion to have the defendant declared a vexatious litigant is moot when the trial court denies the motion, because it does not present an actual controversy. The trial court did not err when, pursuant to R.C. 3119.05(G)(2), it calculated a basic child-support obligation between the two amounts on the basic child-support schedule. The trial court did not err when, on remand, it deviated for reasons not included in the first child-support order and not sought by the plaintiff-wife. The trial court abused its discretion when it deviated from the guideline support amount under R.C. 3119.23(E) for the defendant's supposed underemployment where the trial court already imputed income to defendant based on that underemployment. The trial court abused its discretion when it deviated from the guideline support amount under R.C. 3119.23(I) for in-kind contributions from plaintiff-appellee where the only in-kind contributions identified by the trial court were health-insurance costs, which are already accounted for in the child-support worksheet. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it deviated 10 percent for \equal parenting time\ because it is required by R.C. 3119.051. The trial court erred when it awarded attorney fees under R.C. 3105.73(B) without holding

Judges: Crouse

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.