Lopez-Ruiz v. Botta
Ohio Court of Appeals
No. 11AP-577, 2012 WL 601209 (2012)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Carolina Lopez-Ruiz (plaintiff) and Alejandro Botta (defendant) married in 1997; the couple’s child was born in December 2000. Lopez-Ruiz and Botta divorced in 2004, and the trial court in Pennsylvania ordered Botta to pay child support. Subsequently, Lopez-Ruiz moved to Columbus, Ohio, and Botta moved to Boston, Massachusetts. In December 2005, Lopez-Ruiz registered the Pennsylvania orders in Ohio, and Botta and Lopez-Ruiz agreed to the Franklin County Juvenile Court exercising jurisdiction. In November 2009, Lopez-Ruiz and Botta entered into a shared parenting plan in which Lopez-Ruiz became the child’s residential parent and Botta saw the child on the weekends and the summer holidays. The trial court also determined that Botta should pay a set amount of child support per month. After a successful appeal by Botta, the trial court did reconsider its initial child-support determination and ordered Botta to pay $633.56 per month when health insurance was in effect and to pay $651.53 when health insurance was not in effect. Botta appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not considering the cost-of-living differences between Columbus and Boston, the impact of Lopez-Ruiz’s remarriage, and the relative financial resources and needs of each parent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryant, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

