Greaney v. Greaney

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Greaney v. Greaney, 2002-Ohio-6860.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO MONTGOMERY COUNTY TARA M. GREANEY, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA18891 : O P I N I O N - vs : DENNIS J. GREANEY, : Defendant-Appellee. : APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Huffman, Landis & Weaks Co., L.P.A., Jennifer J. Walters, 80 S. Plum Street, Troy, Ohio 45373, for plaintiff-appellant Laurence A. Laskey, 830 One First National Plaza, Dayton, Ohio 45402, for defendant-appellee WALSH, P.J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Tara Greaney, appeals a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, support in part obligation granting of a downward deviation defendant-appellee, Dennis in the Greaney. child We affirm the decision of the trial court. {¶2} The parties were married and have two children together, Brian, born April 30, 1982, and Maureen, born November 17, 1986. Montgomery CA18891 They divorced support. in The 1995 costs and appellee associated was with ordered the to children's pay child uninsured medical expenses, including dental expenses, were to be divided according to the parties' percentage incomes as indicated on the child support worksheet. At the time of the order, appellant had no income; therefore, appellee was responsible for 100% of all uninsured medical expenses. {¶3} Both children eventually required orthodontia treatment and appellee financed the uninsured portion of the expense over the course of 60 months. Approximately two years into the repayment, appellant moved the trial court to increase appellee's child support obligation, which had recently been decreased due to Brian's emancipation. Brian's orthodontic treatment had concluded and his braces had been removed at this time. {¶4} At a hearing on the motion, the trial court was presented with evidence of the parties' respective incomes, which neither party disputed. Appellee requested a deviation from the guideline support amount in consideration of the monthly payments he was obligated to make for the children's orthodontic treatment. The trial court granted appellant's request for an increase in appellee's child support obligation, and granted a deviation as requested by appellee. Appellant appeals, raising a single assignment of error in which she alleges that the trial court erred by deviating from the guideline support amount. - 2 - Montgomery CA18891 {¶5} It is discretion in decisions well-settled will trial has of that "The disturbed obligations, broad such be support court and not child a Pauly v. Pauly (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390. discretion. determining that absent an abuse term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. {¶6} The guideline support obligation calculated under R.C. 3113.215 is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of Harbertner v. Harbertner (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 485. support. However, R.C. 3113.215(B)(3) permits the trial court to deviate from the support schedule if the court finds the amount ordered would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child. court is directed by In making this determination, the trial R.C. 3113.215(B)(3) to consider certain factors, including all relevant factors. {¶7} In the present case, the magistrate's decision states that a deviation reasonable and in from the guideline the best interest support of the amount child is *** "just, due to [appellee's] continued 100% payment of the existing orthodontia bill for the minor child." While appellant argues that the trial court failed to make the findings required under R.C. 3113.215 to permit a deviation from the guideline amount, the magistrate's above statement constitutes the necessary findings. - 3 - While stated Montgomery CA18891 in the inverse of the statutory language, the findings are in fact those required by the statute. Similarly, in affirming the magistrate's decision upon appellant's objections, the trial court stated that "[t]he deviation is equitable and appropriate given the facts and circumstances." We thus conclude the record contains the findings mandated by R.C. 3113.215 necessary to order a deviation in the guideline support amount. {¶8} Appellant inappropriately further considered argues the that payment the of trial uninsured court medical expenses when determining whether to deviate from the guideline child support obligation. R.C. 3113.215(B)(3) provides a list of factors for the trial court to consider when determining whether a deviation in child support child's best interest. is just, appropriate, and in the Relevant to the present case, the trial court may consider the special and unusual needs of the children, the financial resources of the parents, significant in-kind contributions made by a parent, and any other factors that the trial court may find relevant. R.C. 3113.215(B)(3). The consideration of uninsured medical expenses is appropriate under any one of these provisions. While the payment of uninsured medical expenses does not mandate a deviation in child support, it is within the trial court's discretion to consider the payment of such expenses when determining whether a deviation is appropriate. {¶9} Appellant lastly contends that the trial court erred in ordering the deviation as the present orthodontic payments are for - 4 - Montgomery CA18891 past treatment. It is undisputed that Brian's course of treatment has concluded. However it is unclear whether Maureen's treatment is complete. ongoing or In either case, the payments are a current expense, incurred in the best interests of the children. Consequently, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion by considering this expense when determining appellee's child support obligation. The assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. YOUNG and VALEN, JJ., concur. - 5 - Montgomery CA18891 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO MONTGOMERY COUNTY TARA M. GREANEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, : : : CASE NO. CA18891 JUDGMENT ENTRY - vs - : DENNIS J. GREANEY, Defendant-Appellee. : : The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon as heretofore set forth, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order herein appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. It is further ordered that a Montgomery County Court of Common Division, for execution upon this copy of this Judgment Entry shall pursuant to App.R. 27. mandate be sent to the Pleas, Domestic Relations judgment and that a certified constitute the mandate Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24. ___________________________________ James E. Walsh, Presiding Judge ___________________________________ William W. Young, Judge - 6 - Montgomery CA18891 ___________________________________ Anthony Valen, Judge - 7 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.