In The Court Of Appeals First Appellate District Of Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio (Page 4 of 4) in pdf

In The Court Of Appeals First Appellate District Of Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio Page 4

OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

trial court could not determine the amount of any final arrearages Speller might have

owed for the time periods in question.

We, therefore, sustain the second assignment of

error, in which Speller argues that the trial court erred in modifying his child-support

obligation and setting a retroactive child-support order when it lacked any

calculations that were based upon the parties’ income and child-support worksheets.

But because the trial court’s finding that any money generated by a business

arrangement between Speller and Brady involving real property was not intended to be

child support was supported by competent, credible evidence, we overrule Speller’s first

assignment of error.

Accordingly, we affirm that part of the juvenile court’s judgment determining

that certain real estate proceeds were not intended as child support. But in all other

respects, the court’s judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded for further

proceedings in accordance with the law.

A certified copy of this judgment entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall

be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.

, P.J., S

and H

, JJ.

ILDEBRANDT

UNDERMANN

ENDON

To the Clerk:

Enter upon the Journal of the Court on March 24, 2010

per order of the Court _______________________________.

Presiding Judge

See R.C. 3111.13(F)(1) and (F)(2); see, also, R.C. 3119.05(J) (providing that when a court orders

retroactive support it must base its calculations on the income of the parents and the child-

support worksheets and schedules as they exist at the time).

In The Court Of Appeals First Appellate District Of Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio Page 4