Court Opinion

ID: 9816100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:36:43.447743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:53.265765
License: Public Domain

Hoffman, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 48} I concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of appellant’s first, second, and third assignments of error. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of appellant’s fourth and fifth assignments of error.
{¶ 49} I do agree in principle with the majority’s legal conclusion that the mortgage payments, truck payments, and cell phone costs paid by appellant’s parents may be counted as imputed income to appellant. Those sums could then be added to appellant’s salary, as an employee of his father’s business, in arriving at his imputed income. However, I believe it is an abuse of discretion in this case to add those sums to the imputed income as established though appellee’s vocational expert, which we have already approved in our discussion of appellant’s second assignment of error. To do so overinflates appellant’s imputed income. I believe that appellant’s imputed income should either be that as determined by appellee’s vocational expert or appellant’s actual income from his father’s construction company, plus the mortgage, truck, and cell phone payments, but not both.