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 CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 14,330×
- Booth v. BoothOhio Supreme Court· 1989-07-26· cited 1,162×
- Griffey v. RajanOhio Supreme Court· 1987-11-10· cited 822×
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- Marker v. GrimmOhio Supreme Court· 1992-11-25· cited 401×
- Fortner v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court· 1970-04-08· cited 308×
- Vance v. RoedersheimerOhio Supreme Court· 1992-09-02· cited 164×
- In re Disqualification of CalabreseOhio Supreme Court· 2002-06-21· cited 27×
- State v. AustinOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-10-08· cited 21×
- Torres Friedenberg v. Friedenberg (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-06-18· cited 15×
- Habtemariam v. WorkuOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-05-21· cited 13×
- Patterson v. PattersonOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-11-03· cited 8×
- Lingenfelter v. LingenfelterOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-09-30· cited 8×
- Hilbert v. HilbertOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-12-12· cited 7×
- Mayberry v. MayberryOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-03-15· cited 5×
- Haviza v. HavizaOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-06-30· cited 4×
- Rummelhoff v. RummelhoffOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-05-13· cited 4×
- Hoover Kacyon, LLC v. MartellCourt of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Stark County· 2018-12-03· cited 4×
- Dover City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Holdings (In re O'Farrell)Ohio Supreme Court· 2017-11-28· cited 1×
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.