Barnick v. Barnick
2016 Ohio 5808
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- William and Lenore Barnick divorced in 2001 after 24 years of marriage; one child remained unemancipated at the time of divorce.
- At the 2001 final hearing the trial court imputed income to William ($72,500/year) because it found him voluntarily unemployed; ordered child support and spousal support (modifiable on changed circumstances).
- William became disabled on October 1, 2010, began receiving government benefits in March 2011, and later sought modification/termination of spousal support in Nov. 2013.
- Lenore filed for contempt and a lump-sum judgment for accrued child and spousal support; parties acknowledged arrearages of roughly $153,000.
- A magistrate found William’s current net monthly income was $2,526.66, found Lenore’s income had risen substantially, modified spousal support to zero due to William’s disability, but entered a judgment for arrears of $143,645.47 and ordered William to pay $900/month toward the judgment and to name Lenore as beneficiary on his life insurance until paid.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; William appealed contesting (1) sufficiency of evidence for the arrearage judgment and (2) the $900/month payment and life‑insurance beneficiary requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barnick) | Defendant's Argument (Barnick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the $143,645.47 lump-sum judgment for spousal support arrears was unsupported by the record | William contends the judgment amount is unsupported and the magistrate’s calculation was erroneous | Lenore relied on the magistrate’s calculation and noted William never objected below to the arrearage figure | Court held William forfeited challenge by failing to object below; no plain-error argument was raised, so claim overruled |
| 2. Whether requiring $900/month payments (and life‑insurance beneficiary designation) was an abuse of discretion | William argued he cannot afford $900/month given monthly income of $2,526.66 and asserted $1,850/month housing expense (room & board) that would make $900 unaffordable | Lenore and the magistrate noted William failed to substantiate the $1,850 housing claim; the magistrate found his affidavit lacked credibility and $900 was reasonable | Court held no abuse of discretion: trial court accepted magistrate’s credibility findings and William provided no authority or evidence to show inability to pay; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
(No officially reported authorities with reporter citations are relied on in the opinion.)