Bailey v. Bailey
2020 Ohio 4333
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Parties: Brenda and Raymond Bailey, married 35 years; both age 53 at time of divorce.
- Financials/ability: Raymond averaged about $84,500/year; Brenda receives Social Security disability (~$13,326/year) but has provided in‑home daycare and could work.
- Trial court divorce disposition: awarded Brenda spousal support of $1,750/month for eight years, nonmodifiable (except termination on remarriage/cohabitation). Trial court declined to retain jurisdiction to modify support.
- Procedural posture: Raymond appealed only the court’s refusal to retain modification jurisdiction; Brenda cross‑appealed the eight‑year fixed term and sought indefinite or longer support.
- Appellate holding summary: Sixth District affirmed the eight‑year, definite term but reversed the portion refusing to retain jurisdiction and remanded for an amended judgment reserving modification jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brenda) | Defendant's Argument (Raymond) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have retained jurisdiction to modify the spousal support award | N/A on appeal (Brenda did not challenge retention) | The court erred by not reserving jurisdiction; parties may face changed circumstances (disability, job loss) and must have ability to seek modification | Reversed: court abused its discretion by not retaining jurisdiction over the eight‑year award; remanded to reserve modification jurisdiction |
| Whether spousal support should be indefinite or for a longer fixed term | Brenda: she is disabled, unemployed, and lacks means to become self‑supporting; award should be indefinite or at least ~12 years | Raymond: did not challenge amount/length; implicitly supported definite term based on trial court findings | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in an eight‑year definite term because Brenda is relatively young and showed ability/potential to work (e.g., daycare) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1990) (articulates modern preference for terminating spousal support on a date certain and exceptions for long marriages or payees unable to become self‑supporting)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 1997) (trial court spousal‑support rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 88 Ohio App.3d 329 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (retention of jurisdiction to modify spousal support is discretionary with trial court)
- Bertholet v. Bertholet, 154 Ohio App.3d 101 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (courts generally err when imposing lengthy definite support without retaining modification jurisdiction)
- Arthur v. Arthur, 130 Ohio App.3d 398 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (affirming that a payee’s ability to work supports a definite termination date)
- Nori v. Nori, 58 Ohio App.3d 69 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (similar principle regarding modification jurisdiction and definite term awards)