Memorandum of Law: This document lays out arguments to the court on a number of issues, including the proper method of calculating gross incomes when there is spousal support and the proper way to compute guideline child support in shared parenting situations.
Objections to Magistrate's Decision: Because the magistrate's decision ignored the principled arguments raised in the memorandum of law, this document contains few additions to those arguments. Mostly, it objects because the magistrate's decision avoided the issues of law raised in the memorandum of law.
Addendum to Memorandum of Law: This references the Loeffler case, which had not been rendered when the memorandum of law was issued. It also addresses "false precedents that have been mistakenly cited to avoid following the reasoning of Luke and Weinberger. These are cases which are not relevant to the Pauly argument but have mistakenly been cited as relevant.
Reply to Plaintiff's Response: This is a reply to Hubin's ex-wife's attorney's response to the Pauly Argument. Because of the misunderstandings of the argument in that attorney's response, the argument is laid out here in step-by-step format.
Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: In anticipation of an appeal of the court ruling, Hubin requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first request was generic. He subsequenly filed a request for very specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court gave no response beyond the court decision, which failed to address the issues raised in Hubin's requests.
Appellate Brief: On November 22, 1999, this brief was filed with the 10th Appellate District Court.
Appellate Court Decision: This is the Tenth Appellate District Court's decision.
Motion for Reconsideration: To sharpen the focus of the disagreement between the Tenth District Court and the First and Eleventh District Courts, this motion for reconsideration was filed.
Motion to Certify Conflict: To obtain an "appeal of right", this motion was filed requesting that the Tenth Appellate District Court certify that it has decided a question of law in a manner that is in conflict with other Ohio appellate court districts
Ruling on Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Certify Question for Ohio Supreme Court: The Tenth Appellate Court issued its ruling on the above two motions. It denied the motion to reconsider but granted the motion to certify one of our questions to the Ohio Supreme Court. It concluded that its decision was clearly in conflict with the other appellate court decisions we had cited.
Memorandum in Support of Supreme Court Jurisdiction: This document asks the Ohio Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction over this case. It is the state equivalent of a request for certiori in the U.S. Supreme Court. It was filed with the Ohio Supreme Court on August 4,2000. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the conflict case and the associated issue raised in our discretionary appeal. The two cases were combined and a brief was ordered on the combined case.
Merit Brief: This document presents the argument for our contention that, in a shared parenting case: the two parents' child support obligations must each be presumed to be correct; the court must subject both child support obligations to a child support order unless court unless the court finds that a deviation is appropriate; if the court finds that a deviation is appropriate, it must support that conclusion with findings of fact and conclusions of law; and, finally, the court must "net out" the two child support obligations. Submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court on February 14, 2001.
Reply Brief: This document responds to the merit brief of the appellee.
Amici Reply Brief on behalf of Parents And Children for Equality (PACE), the Children's and Parent's Rights Association (CAPRA) and the Children's Rights Council (CRC) of Ohio: This brief was filed by attorney James Hanneman in support of my position.
Amicus Reply Brief on behalf of Ed Kehres: This brief was filed by attorney Heather Tootle in support of my position.
Supreme Court Decision: The one sentence, unanimous decision of the Ohio Supreme Court. In a shared parenting situation in Ohio, there is only one parent with a child support obligation that is presumptively subjected to a child support order. The Court did not choose to say how a trial court is to determine which parent that is.