[Cite as Kopaniasz v. Kopaniasz, 2024-Ohio-2493.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Ashley Kopaniasz Court of Appeals No. L-23-1196
Appellee Trial Court No. DR2015-0832
v.
Michael Kopaniasz DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 28, 2024
*****
Jeremy W. Levy, for appellee.
Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appellant.
***** MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} In this expedited appeal, appellant, Michael Kopaniasz, appeals the August
10, 2023 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, modifying his child support order in conjunction with terminating the shared-
parenting plan he and appellee, Ashley Kopaniasz, entered into at the time of their
divorce. Because the trial court miscalculated Michael’s gross income for 2022, we
reverse the trial court’s decision in part and remand the case for new child support
calculations. I. Background and Facts
{¶ 2} Michael and Ashley have two minor children together. When they divorced
in 2016, they agreed to a shared-parenting plan that gave them essentially equal parenting
time. They also agreed to deviate Ashley’s child support obligation to zero. In June
2021, Ashley filed a motion to terminate the shared-parenting plan and modify child
support.1
{¶ 3} At the September 2022 hearing before the magistrate, Ashley testified that
she was employed at Zepf Center as a senior substance use disorder director. She
submitted as an exhibit a paystub showing that her year-to-date gross income for 2022
was $75,031.96 as of August 14, 2022. She said that the amount on the paystub was
consistent with the year-to-date gross income she listed on the affidavit of income she
filed with the court in May 2022.
{¶ 4} In his testimony, Michael said that he was employed at McLaren St. Luke’s
Hospital on a per diem basis as a registered nurse, working 30 to 40 hours a week. He
began that job on June 1, 2022. According to the St. Luke’s paystub that Ashley
submitted as an exhibit, Michael’s year-to-date gross income from St. Luke’s for 2022
was $37,154.64 as of July 2, 2022. Before working at St. Luke’s, Michael briefly worked
as a nurse practitioner for Vituity at a hospital based in Lansing, Michigan. According to
the Vituity paystub that Ashley submitted as an exhibit, Michael’s year-to-date gross
1 Although the parties filed numerous motions and litigated multiple issues in the trial court, Michael’s appeal relates solely to the trial court’s determination of his child support obligation, so the other issues are irrelevant here.
2. income from Vituity for 2022 was $7,792.63 as of April 16, 2022. Although the hourly
rates on the Vituity paystub were higher, Michael explained that he was working per
diem as a registered nurse at St. Luke’s because the “bonus pays” for last-minute or less-
desirable shifts are “above and beyond Vituity’s pay.” In response to his attorney asking
if his “income could very well be as much as you were making an Vituity[,]” Michael
responded, “It’s the same.”
{¶ 5} On the whole, Michael’s testimony about his employment and sources of
income was confusing. At the beginning of his testimony, he said that he changed jobs
“about three years ago” to become “full-time at [his] part-time position . . .” to provide
medical insurance for the children, which he had done until June 1, 2022. He said the job
that provided health insurance was with Vituity, and that the company hired him in
November 2021. In June 2022, he “amicably” left his job with Vituity and “went back to
[his] previous job of per diem . . .” at St. Luke’s. Later, he said that he worked at Vituity
for “[t]hree months[,]” but had been providing health insurance for the children “[s]ince
2020.” During cross-examination, Michael confirmed the magistrate’s understanding
that he had worked at St. Luke’s full-time, gone to Vituity, and come back to St. Luke’s
on a per diem basis. Michael’s resume and answers to interrogatories, which Ashley
submitted as exhibits, confirm that Michael worked at Vituity from March to June 2022,
and, contrary to his testimony, indicate that he worked at St. Luke’s continuously
beginning in January 2019.
3. {¶ 6} In addition to discussing his own employment, Michael testified that Ashley
had a private counseling practice on the side. He did not present any information or
evidence about her private practice or the income she might have made from it beyond
alleging that it existed.
{¶ 7} In her decision terminating the parties’ shared-parenting plan, the magistrate
found that Ashley’s gross income as of August 14, 2022, was $75,031.96. The
magistrate extrapolated her income to $120,847.94. The magistrate also found that
Michael’s gross income was $73,903.22. She based that number solely on Michael’s
paystub from St. Luke’s, and did not address the income that he made while working for
Vituity in 2022. The magistrate noted that Michael “did not file a witness or exhibit list,
nor did [he] provide updated financial schedules as ordered in the pre-trial order . . . .”
{¶ 8} Based on those income figures, the magistrate calculated Michael’s monthly
child support obligation as $375.45 per child, plus processing fees, and his monthly cash
medical support obligation as $12.29 per child, plus processing fees. The magistrate
ordered that $842 per month be withheld from Michael’s income, which included
$750.90 for child support, $24.59 for cash medical support, $50 for arrears, and $16.51
for processing fees.
{¶ 9} Michael filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. In his initial
objections, he made a cursory objection to the magistrate’s child support calculation.
That objection reads, in its entirety, “[Michael] objects to the calculation of child support
as the Court failed to adequately find [Ashley’s] actual income and overstated
4. [Michael’s] true income.” He did not elaborate on this preliminary objection once he had
the hearing transcript, and Ashley did not address the issue in her response to Michael’s
objections.
{¶ 10} In its decision on Michael’s objections, the trial court found that the
magistrate erred in calculating Michael’s income. The court noted that it was required to
verify the parties’ incomes with documents such as paystubs or tax returns, and Michael
did not submit any exhibits or update his financial schedules. The only financial
documents available at the time of the hearing were the paystubs that Ashley submitted as
exhibits. In those exhibits was Ashley’s year-to-date gross income from Zepf Center,
Michael’s year-to-date gross income from Vituity, and Michael’s year-to-date gross
income from St. Luke’s. The court also found that Michael did not offer any evidence
that Ashley had income from a source other than her job at Zepf Center.
{¶ 11} The trial court agreed with the magistrate’s finding that extrapolating
Ashley’s year-to-date income resulted in a gross income of $120,847.94. However, the
court disagreed with the magistrate’s calculation of Michael’s income. The court found
that the magistrate “failed to include all of [Michael’s] annual gross income in its
computation of child support by not including the three months of income earned as a
nurse practitioner with Vituity in 2022.” The court determined that the year-to-date gross
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Kopaniasz v. Kopaniasz, 2024-Ohio-2493.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Ashley Kopaniasz Court of Appeals No. L-23-1196
Appellee Trial Court No. DR2015-0832
v.
Michael Kopaniasz DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 28, 2024
*****
Jeremy W. Levy, for appellee.
Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appellant.
***** MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} In this expedited appeal, appellant, Michael Kopaniasz, appeals the August
10, 2023 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, modifying his child support order in conjunction with terminating the shared-
parenting plan he and appellee, Ashley Kopaniasz, entered into at the time of their
divorce. Because the trial court miscalculated Michael’s gross income for 2022, we
reverse the trial court’s decision in part and remand the case for new child support
calculations. I. Background and Facts
{¶ 2} Michael and Ashley have two minor children together. When they divorced
in 2016, they agreed to a shared-parenting plan that gave them essentially equal parenting
time. They also agreed to deviate Ashley’s child support obligation to zero. In June
2021, Ashley filed a motion to terminate the shared-parenting plan and modify child
support.1
{¶ 3} At the September 2022 hearing before the magistrate, Ashley testified that
she was employed at Zepf Center as a senior substance use disorder director. She
submitted as an exhibit a paystub showing that her year-to-date gross income for 2022
was $75,031.96 as of August 14, 2022. She said that the amount on the paystub was
consistent with the year-to-date gross income she listed on the affidavit of income she
filed with the court in May 2022.
{¶ 4} In his testimony, Michael said that he was employed at McLaren St. Luke’s
Hospital on a per diem basis as a registered nurse, working 30 to 40 hours a week. He
began that job on June 1, 2022. According to the St. Luke’s paystub that Ashley
submitted as an exhibit, Michael’s year-to-date gross income from St. Luke’s for 2022
was $37,154.64 as of July 2, 2022. Before working at St. Luke’s, Michael briefly worked
as a nurse practitioner for Vituity at a hospital based in Lansing, Michigan. According to
the Vituity paystub that Ashley submitted as an exhibit, Michael’s year-to-date gross
1 Although the parties filed numerous motions and litigated multiple issues in the trial court, Michael’s appeal relates solely to the trial court’s determination of his child support obligation, so the other issues are irrelevant here.
2. income from Vituity for 2022 was $7,792.63 as of April 16, 2022. Although the hourly
rates on the Vituity paystub were higher, Michael explained that he was working per
diem as a registered nurse at St. Luke’s because the “bonus pays” for last-minute or less-
desirable shifts are “above and beyond Vituity’s pay.” In response to his attorney asking
if his “income could very well be as much as you were making an Vituity[,]” Michael
responded, “It’s the same.”
{¶ 5} On the whole, Michael’s testimony about his employment and sources of
income was confusing. At the beginning of his testimony, he said that he changed jobs
“about three years ago” to become “full-time at [his] part-time position . . .” to provide
medical insurance for the children, which he had done until June 1, 2022. He said the job
that provided health insurance was with Vituity, and that the company hired him in
November 2021. In June 2022, he “amicably” left his job with Vituity and “went back to
[his] previous job of per diem . . .” at St. Luke’s. Later, he said that he worked at Vituity
for “[t]hree months[,]” but had been providing health insurance for the children “[s]ince
2020.” During cross-examination, Michael confirmed the magistrate’s understanding
that he had worked at St. Luke’s full-time, gone to Vituity, and come back to St. Luke’s
on a per diem basis. Michael’s resume and answers to interrogatories, which Ashley
submitted as exhibits, confirm that Michael worked at Vituity from March to June 2022,
and, contrary to his testimony, indicate that he worked at St. Luke’s continuously
beginning in January 2019.
3. {¶ 6} In addition to discussing his own employment, Michael testified that Ashley
had a private counseling practice on the side. He did not present any information or
evidence about her private practice or the income she might have made from it beyond
alleging that it existed.
{¶ 7} In her decision terminating the parties’ shared-parenting plan, the magistrate
found that Ashley’s gross income as of August 14, 2022, was $75,031.96. The
magistrate extrapolated her income to $120,847.94. The magistrate also found that
Michael’s gross income was $73,903.22. She based that number solely on Michael’s
paystub from St. Luke’s, and did not address the income that he made while working for
Vituity in 2022. The magistrate noted that Michael “did not file a witness or exhibit list,
nor did [he] provide updated financial schedules as ordered in the pre-trial order . . . .”
{¶ 8} Based on those income figures, the magistrate calculated Michael’s monthly
child support obligation as $375.45 per child, plus processing fees, and his monthly cash
medical support obligation as $12.29 per child, plus processing fees. The magistrate
ordered that $842 per month be withheld from Michael’s income, which included
$750.90 for child support, $24.59 for cash medical support, $50 for arrears, and $16.51
for processing fees.
{¶ 9} Michael filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. In his initial
objections, he made a cursory objection to the magistrate’s child support calculation.
That objection reads, in its entirety, “[Michael] objects to the calculation of child support
as the Court failed to adequately find [Ashley’s] actual income and overstated
4. [Michael’s] true income.” He did not elaborate on this preliminary objection once he had
the hearing transcript, and Ashley did not address the issue in her response to Michael’s
objections.
{¶ 10} In its decision on Michael’s objections, the trial court found that the
magistrate erred in calculating Michael’s income. The court noted that it was required to
verify the parties’ incomes with documents such as paystubs or tax returns, and Michael
did not submit any exhibits or update his financial schedules. The only financial
documents available at the time of the hearing were the paystubs that Ashley submitted as
exhibits. In those exhibits was Ashley’s year-to-date gross income from Zepf Center,
Michael’s year-to-date gross income from Vituity, and Michael’s year-to-date gross
income from St. Luke’s. The court also found that Michael did not offer any evidence
that Ashley had income from a source other than her job at Zepf Center.
{¶ 11} The trial court agreed with the magistrate’s finding that extrapolating
Ashley’s year-to-date income resulted in a gross income of $120,847.94. However, the
court disagreed with the magistrate’s calculation of Michael’s income. The court found
that the magistrate “failed to include all of [Michael’s] annual gross income in its
computation of child support by not including the three months of income earned as a
nurse practitioner with Vituity in 2022.” The court determined that the year-to-date gross
pay of $7,792.63 in the Vituity paystub averaged out to $1,948 per week for four weeks,
which equaled $25,327 when extrapolated over the 13-week period of March to May
2022. The court added $25,327 from Vituity to Michael’s gross income of $73,903 from
5. St. Luke’s for a gross annual income of $99,230 in 2022. Ultimately, the trial court
overruled Michael’s objection to the magistrate’s calculation of the parties’ incomes
because he “failed to support his claim regarding his 2022 gross income with
documentation required by R.C. 3119.05(A) and failed to produce documentation
supporting his objection to the determination of [Ashley’s] 2022 gross income.”
{¶ 12} Based on its calculation of the parties’ gross incomes, the trial court
calculated Michael’s monthly child support obligation as $578.82 per child, plus
processing fees, and his monthly cash medical support obligation as $14.60 per child,
plus processing fees. The court found under R.C. 3119.79 that modification of the child
support order was appropriate because the new amount was a change of greater than ten
percent from the initial child support order of zero dollars and the parties did not
contemplate the termination of the shared-parenting plan or the uneven distribution of
parenting time when the initial support order was entered. The court ordered that
$1,261.59 per month be withheld from Michael’s income, which included $1,157.64 for
child support, $29.21 for cash medical support, $50 for arrears, and $23.74 for processing
fees.
{¶ 13} Michael now appeals, raising one assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED
TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY MISCALCULATING HIS
INCOME BY INCLUDING NONRECURRING, UNSUSTAINABLE
INCOME PURPOSES OF CHILD SUPPORT.
6. II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 14} In his assignment of error, Michael argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by increasing his income because the court failed to appreciate that the money
he earned while working for Vituity was nonrecurring and unsustainable income. He
contends that the magistrate impliedly determined that his Vituity income was
nonrecurring and unsustainable and was properly excluded from his gross income, and
the trial court failed to consider the nature of the Vituity income. He also argues that the
trial court’s statement that “there is no reason for [him] not to be employed on a full time
basis” was an implicit finding that Michael was underemployed, which shows that the
court “basically punished Michael for not doing something he had no obligation to do;
i.e., work full time at a point in time where he was under no duty to pay child support[,]”
by imputing the Vituity income to him. (Italics in original.)
{¶ 15} Ashley responds that the trial court’s calculation of Michael’s income was
supported by competent, credible evidence in the record and the court’s annualization of
Michael’s income was reasonable because it was based on the only information the court
had available to it. She argues that the trial court’s annualization of Michael’s income is
not equivalent to imputing income to him because he was underemployed. Instead, the
court’s finding was “an evidentiary necessity created by [Michael’s] failure to verify his
income as ordered by the trial court.” Finally, Ashley points out that Michael did not
present any evidence to support his claim of reduced earnings and that his earnings at St.
Luke’s are within the same range as his earnings at Vituity.
7. {¶ 16} The decision that Michael appeals from is the trial court’s decision on
objections to the magistrate’s decision. A trial court reviews a magistrate’s decision de
novo. Brancatto v. Boersma, 2013-Ohio-3052, ¶ 8 (6th Dist.). In completing this de
novo review, “[n]ot only is the [trial] court not bound by the magistrate’s decision, the
court has an obligation to conduct an independent review as to the objected matters to
ascertain whether the magistrate has properly determined the facts and appropriately
applied the law.” Id., citing Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d); and Kovacs v. Kovacs, 2004-Ohio-2777,
¶ 6 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 17} On appeal, however, we review a trial court’s ruling on objections to a
magistrate’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 9; Funkhouser v. Funkhouser,
2019-Ohio-733, ¶ 31 (6th Dist.). Abuse of discretion means that the trial court’s decision
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State ex rel. Askew v. Goldhart, 75 Ohio
St.3d 608, 610 (1996). In conducting our review, we will not reverse the trial court’s
factual determination of a parent’s gross income if there is some competent, credible
evidence in the record supporting that determination. Gozdowski v. Gozdowski, 2017-
Ohio-990, ¶ 23 (6th Dist.), citing Thomas v. Thomas, 2004-Ohio-1034, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 18} When a court issues or modifies a child support order, it is required to
calculate the parents’ support obligations using the child support schedule, worksheet,
and other provisions in R.C. Ch. 3119. R.C. 3119.02. Under R.C. 3119.01(C)(10), a
parent’s income is defined as their gross income if they are fully employed. The broad
statutory definition of “gross income” encompasses, among other things, “the total of all
8. 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 .
. . ,” but specifically excludes “[n]onrecurring or unsustainable income or cash flow
items[.]” R.C. 3119.01(C)(13). As relevant here, nonrecurring or unsustainable income
is income a parent receives in a year “that the parent does not expect to continue to
receive on a regular basis.” R.C. 3119.01(C)(14).2 The court calculating child support
must verify the parents’ income “by electronic means or with suitable documents,
including, but not limited to, paystubs, employer statements, receipts and expense
vouchers related to self-generated income, [and] tax returns . . . .” R.C. 3119.05(A).
{¶ 19} Determining whether income is nonrecurring or unsustainable is a highly
fact-specific inquiry. Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014-Ohio-1252, ¶ 28 (10th Dist.)
Generally speaking, income is nonrecurring or unsustainable if it comes from a one-time
payment, like a settlement payment or signing bonus, or reflects a level of income that a
parent cannot maintain due to a change in circumstances. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 29 (citing
cases about one-time payments); Thomas at ¶ 19-20 (Overtime income that father made
for part of the year was “nonrecurring overtime which is no longer available, . . .” and
using that amount to calculate child support “results in a figure that simply does not
accurately represent [father’s] current income.”); Bruno v. Bruno, 2005-Ohio-3812, ¶ 14
2 Many definitions in R.C. 3119.01(C) were renumbered effective April 3, 2024. Under the prior version of the statute, income was defined in subsection (C)(9), gross income was defined in subsection (C)(12), and nonrecurring or unsustainable income was defined in subsection (C)(13). The text of these definitions is the same.
9. (10th Dist.) (Income from father’s old job was unsustainable because his new job paid
significantly less and it “was clear that [father] would not be earning [his former pay] in
the immediate future.”).
{¶ 20} In this case, Michael primarily argues that his income from Vituity is
unsustainable because he no longer works there, so the trial court erred by including that
income in its child support calculation. Although it is true that Michael is no longer
employed by or earning money from Vituity, he testified at the hearing that the “bonus
pays” for last-minute or less-desirable shifts at St. Luke’s are “above and beyond
Vituity’s pay[,]” and his income from St. Luke’s is “the same” as he was making with
Vituity. This fact distinguishes Michael’s situation from a case in which a parent
changes jobs and cannot sustain the level of income they previously earned. See Thomas
at ¶ 19-20; Bruno at ¶ 14. In those cases, including the income from the old job would
artificially increase the parent’s gross income to an unrealistic and unattainable level. In
contrast, excluding the Vituity income would artificially lower Michael’s gross income
for 2022 and ignore his ability to sustain that level of income despite changing jobs. Put
another way, including Michael’s income from Vituity brings his 2022 gross income to
the level that he actually earned in 2022 and that he anticipates earning in the future.
Michael was free to present testimony or documentary evidence contemplated by R.C.
3119.05(A) at the hearing that might have shown that his Vituity income was an
anomaly, but he did not do so. As a result, he is stuck with the trial court’s determination
that the Vituity income is part of his gross income for 2022 because that finding is
10. supported by some competent, credible evidence in the record, and the court’s inclusion
of that income is not an abuse of discretion.
{¶ 21} Michael argues that the trial court’s comment that “there is no reason for
[him] not to be employed on a full time basis” shows that the court implicitly found that
he was voluntarily underemployed, which it improperly used to impute additional income
to him. See R.C. 3119.01(C)(10)(b), (18) (definitions applying to voluntarily
underemployed parents and their potential income). He correctly points out that the trial
court was required to make an explicit finding that he was voluntarily underemployed
before imputing income to him. Ayers v. Ayers, 2024-Ohio-1833, ¶ 27. But there is no
evidence in the record that the trial court implicitly determined that he was
underemployed or imputed income to him. In fact, the trial court specifically said that
“the Magistrate failed to include all of [Michael’s] annual gross income in its
computation of child support by not including the three months of income earned as a
nurse practitioner with Vituity in 2022.” By doing so, the court clearly indicated that it
was including the Vituity income because it believed that the magistrate forgot three
months of income, not because it thought that Michael was underemployed at St. Luke’s
and should have been making more money.
{¶ 22} However, although the trial correctly included the Vituity income in
Michael’s gross income, it incorrectly calculated how much he made. The court based its
calculation on the incorrect assumption that Michael earned the year-to-date gross
amount on the paystub over a four-week period. But the paystub shows a year-to-date
11. gross amount through April 16, 2022, which is halfway through the three months Michael
worked for Vituity. That is, Michael earned the year-to-date amount on the paystub over
six-and-a-half weeks—not four weeks like the trial court found—so the trial court’s
weekly income amount was based on an incorrect calculation. Instead of dividing the
amount in the paystub by four and multiplying the resulting weekly amount by 13 weeks
as the trial court did, a more appropriate way to determine Michael’s Vituity income is to
simply double the year-to-date amount. So, rather than the gross income of $25,327 that
the trial court used, the appropriate amount of Michael’s gross income from Vituity for
2022 is $15,585.26. When Michael’s Vituity income is added to his St. Luke’s income,
his 2022 gross income for the child support calculation is $89,488.26.
{¶ 23} Because the trial court’s findings that Michael’s Vituity income was
$25,327 and his gross income was $99,230 are not supported by some competent,
credible evidence in the record, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by using
$99,230 as Michael’s gross income in its child support calculation. Accordingly,
Michael’s assignment of error is well-taken in part.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 24} Based on the information presented to the magistrate, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by including Michael’s Vituity income in his 2022 gross income.
However, the trial court’s finding that Michael earned $25,327 from Vituity in 2022 is not
supported by some competent, credible evidence in the record and is against the manifest
weight of the evidence. Because the trial court relied on its erroneous income
12. calculation, we find that the court abused its discretion in modifying Michael’s child
support obligation. Therefore, the August 10, 2023 judgment of the Lucas County Court
of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is reversed as to the amount of child
support only and remanded. On remand, the trial court is ordered to recalculate
Michael’s child support obligation using $89,488.26 as his gross income for 2022. The
parties are ordered to divide the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE CONCUR. ____________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
13.