[Cite as Pringle v. Pringle,
2023-Ohio-1335.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOSEPH R. PRINGLE : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs- :
:
ARLIANNA R. PRINGLE : Case No. 22 CA 00096
:
Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 22DR0136
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 24, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
CHRISTIAN D. ROLAND STACY J. JEWELL
P.O. Box 111 9 South Third Street
Buckeye Lake, OH 43008 Newark, OH 43055
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 2
King, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Joseph R. Pringle, appeals the October 6, 2022
Judgment Entry - Decree of Divorce entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Licking
County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division, granting a divorce to him and Defendant-
Appellee, Arlianna R. Pringle. We affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On October 13, 2018, husband and wife were married. The parties have
one child born February 2021. On February 18, 2022, husband filed a complaint for
divorce. A hearing was held on October 4, 2022. By judgment entry - decree of divorce
filed October 6, 2022, the trial court granted the parties a divorce, ordered husband to
pay child support in the amount of $836.38 per month, and divided the parties' assets and
debts.
{¶ 3} Husband filed an appeal with the following assignments of error:
I
{¶ 4} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TREATING THE MORTGAGE AS A
MARITAL DEBT."
II
{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ASSIGNING THE ELECTIVE
SURGERY EXPENSE TO THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE."
III
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INCLUDING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S
NON-RECURRING OVERTIME AND BONUS INCOME IN THE CHILD SUPPORT
CALCULATION."
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 3
IV
{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DEVIATE FROM THE
CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATION DUE TO THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S
PERMANENT LOSS OF OVERTIME AND BONUS INCOME."
I
{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, husband claims the trial court erred in
treating the mortgage as a marital debt. We disagree.
{¶ 9} As an appellate court, we generally review a trial court's property division in
divorce proceedings under an abuse of discretion standard. Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio
St.2d 348,
421 N.E.2d 1293 (1981). Accord Martin v. Martin,
18 Ohio St.3d 292, 294-
295,
480 N.E.2d 1112 (1985). In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine
the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely
an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217,
450 N.E.2d 1140
(1983).
{¶ 10} Wife purchased the marital home prior to the marriage. At the time of the
marriage, the home was appraised at $154,000.00. T. at 62. At the time of the divorce,
the home was appraised at $205,000.00, and the outstanding mortgage on the home was
$88,199.65. T. at 56-57. There was no discussion on the nature of this mortgage. The
parties stipulated during the marriage, $21,066.63 of marital funds were used to pay down
the mortgage. T. at 117-118.
{¶ 11} The trial court acknowledged the marital home was a combination of
separate and marital property. October 6, 2022 Judgment Entry at 22. The trial court
noted the remaining amount on the mortgage was $88,199.65, and the parties "stipulated
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 4
that the mortgage was a valid marital debt." Id. at 23. Husband argues the parties did
not stipulate that the mortgage was a valid marital debt.
{¶ 12} A review of the record does not indicate a specific stipulation regarding the
mortgage as a marital debt, but it does indicate the mortgage was not a contested issue
between the parties.
{¶ 13} During the hearing, prior to taking any testimony, the trial court diligently
went through all of the issues to determine what was agreed upon and what was
contested. On the issue of the mortgage on the marital home, the trial court explained
the numbers as follows: "Okay. So two oh five (205) [current fair market value] and then
we've agreed that eighty-eight one ninety-nine sixty-five (88,199.65) [mortgage] is the
marital debt to come off of that." T. at 119. The trial court then went on to discuss the
contested home equity loan and the $10,000.00 portion that was in dispute and stated:
"So that aspect is left still in dispute, the ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Everything else
on the house is done though, is that correct?" T. at 120. Both parties responded in the
affirmative. Id. Husband did not object to the $88,199.65 mortgage amount coming off
the fair market value of the marital home.
{¶ 14} Having failed to object or contest the mortgage amount as marital debt, we
find husband has waived any argument relative to the issue.
{¶ 15} Assignment of Error I is denied.
II
{¶ 16} In his second assignment of error, husband claims the trial court erred in
not assigning wife's elective surgery expense to her. We disagree.
{¶ 17} The parties had a home equity loan in the amount of $73,605.27. Husband
argued the loan was of mixed character, as wife spent $10,000.00 for cosmetic surgery
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 5
right before their separation. Wife argued the loan was all marital. The trial court found
all of the home equity loan to be marital debt, as "the monies related to the surgery
occurred during the marriage and was for a valid marital purpose." October 6, 2022
Judgment Entry at 23.
{¶ 18} On October 1, 2021, wife told husband she needed surgery for a deviated
septum. T. at 148. Husband characterized the surgery as "a nose job." T. at 149. Wife
testified the surgery consisted of fixing a deviated septum, correcting a missing "helix" in
her ear, and fixing a breathing issue. T. at 168-169. She stated the cosmetic part of the
surgery removed a bump and length from her nose. T. at 169. The surgery was
performed on November 3, 2021, paid for in October. T. at 169, 184. Husband moved
out of the marital home on November 5, 2021. T. at 150. At the time of the surgery, the
parties had not yet filed for divorce, and wife was fully committed to the marriage. T. at
169, 174-175. Wife knew they were having trouble, but hoped they could make it work.
T. at 175. Wife testified: "You know, like there was a lot of good and so I knew that we
could be good. I kept saying all I got to do is get back on track and we can be fine again."
T. at 183. Wife gave up on the marriage due to husband's actions after the surgery. T.
at 171, 174-175, 183.
{¶ 19} On direct, husband was asked: "So did you form an opinion as to whether *
… this surgery was done in contemplation of the end of your relationship or time after
that?" T. at 150-151. Husband responded: "Honestly, I'm not sure because it's twenty
days after the money from the equity line of credit was deposited into the account and I
had no prior knowledge of what day the money was spent until receiving the records." T.
at 151.
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 6
{¶ 20} Based upon the testimony presented, we do not find the trial court abused
its discretion in finding the entire home equity loan to be a marital debt.
{¶ 21} Assignment of Error II is denied.
III
{¶ 22} In his third assignment of error, husband claims the trial court erred by
including his non-recurring overtime and bonus income into the child support calculation.
We disagree.
{¶ 23} In computing annual income for child support purposes, "gross income"
means in part, "the total of all earned and unearned income from all sources during a
calendar year, whether or not the income is taxable, and includes income from salaries,
wages, overtime pay, and bonuses to the extent described in division (D) of section
3119.05 of the Revised Code; … ." R.C. 3119.01(C)(12).
{¶ 24} R.C. 3119.05(D) states the following:
(D) When the court or agency calculates the annual income of a
parent, it shall include the lesser of the following as income from overtime
and bonuses:
(1) The yearly average of all overtime, commissions, and bonuses
received during the three years immediately prior to the time when the
person's child support obligation is being computed;
(2) The total overtime, commissions, and bonuses received during
the year immediately prior to the time when the person's child support
obligation is being computed.
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 7
{¶ 25} The trial court took husband's overtime and bonus pay for 2019, 2020, and
2021, averaged the numbers, and added the amount to his base pay. October 6, 2022
Judgment Entry at 16. Husband argues he has lost his overtime and bonus income, so
it should not have been included in the calculation.
{¶ 26} The hearing was held on October 4, 2022. Husband testified his overtime
dropped considerably in 2022 so his income dropped drastically. T. at 144. His most
current paystub prior to the hearing showed overtime and bonus pay. T. at 145-146.
When questioned about overtime and bonuses for the remainder of the year, husband
responded, "unlikely" for overtime and "no outlook" for bonuses. T. at 147.
{¶ 27} The trial court explained to husband he was following the law and was
looking "at the three preceding years, average them, compare it to 2021, use the lower of
the two amounts. Don't consider the overtime and bonuses for 2022." T. at 154-155.
The trial court informed husband if in fact his income was significantly lower at the
conclusion of 2022, he could file a motion to modify his child support amount and the trial
court could revisit the numbers. T. at 154. The trial court stated husband "may wish to
file a motion requesting a change of child support, should his annual overtime and
bonuses show a significant reduction, at the end of the year." October 6, 2022 Judgment
Entry at 19.
{¶ 28} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in computing husband's
income for child support purposes.
{¶ 29} Assignment of Error III is denied.
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 8
IV
{¶ 30} In his fourth assignment of error, husband claims the trial court erred by
failing to deviate from the child support calculation due to his permanent loss of overtime
and bonus income. We disagree.
{¶ 31} Child support decisions, including the decision to deviate from the actual
obligation, are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio
St.3d 142, 144,
541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989); Bible v. Bible, 5th Dist. Coshocton No.
2018CA0001,
2018-Ohio-5147, ¶ 21;
Blakemore, supra.
{¶ 32} R.C. 3119.22 states the following:
The court may order an amount of child support that deviates from
the amount of child support that would otherwise result from the use of the
basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet if, after
considering the factors and criteria set forth in section 3119.23 of the
Revised Code, the court determines that the amount calculated pursuant to
the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet would be
unjust or inappropriate and therefore not be in the best interest of the child.
{¶ 33} R.C. 3119.23 lists factors to be considered for deviation. In support,
husband cites subsection (Q), "[a]ny other relevant factor." Husband argues the
permanent loss of overtime and bonus income is a relevant factor.
{¶ 34} No testimony was presented that the loss of overtime and bonus income
was permanent at the time of the hearing. Husband's testimony was "unlikely" and "no
outlook." T. at 147. While his employer had a customer pull its orders due to supply
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 9
chain issues, it was unknown if the problems could be rectified or if the company could
land another account and increase its production numbers by the end of the year. T. at
142, 147-148. As stated above, husband's current payroll stub prior to the hearing was
still showing overtime and bonus pay. T. at 145-146.
{¶ 35} The trial court granted husband a deviation for his extended parenting time,
but did not deviate downward for husband's reduced overtime and bonuses, stating it was
following the law under R.C. 3119.05(D) cited above. October 6, 2022 Judgment Entry
at 18-19.
{¶ 36} Husband has not pointed to any evidence in the record that shows his child
support amount "would be unjust or inappropriate and therefore not be in the best interest
of the child." R.C. 3119.22.
{¶ 37} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to
further deviate from the child support calculation.
{¶ 38} Assignment of Error IV is denied.
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00096 10
{¶ 39} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio,
Domestic Relations Division, is hereby affirmed.
By King, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
AJK/db
[Cite as Pringle v. Pringle, 2023-Ohio-1335.]
