Basista v. Basista
2016 Ohio 146
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Cynthia and Michael Basista, married 1989, divorced after 23 years; four minor children and substantial marital assets (~$1.6M non-retirement to each after division).
- Michael (gastroenterologist) had salary $355,890 in 2011 but renegotiated post-judgment to $765,849; trial court’s initial worksheets used outdated figures, prompting appellate remand.
- Cynthia (formerly an internist) stopped practicing full time in 2000, twice failed board certification early in career; vocational expert opined she could retrain and earn physician-level income after two years at cost ~$20,000.
- Magistrate imputed income to Cynthia (minimum wage for two years, then $108,531 as a physician) and awarded spousal support ($4,200/mo for 24 months; $2,800/mo for 66 months) and child support based on imputed incomes.
- On appeal the Sixth District remanded to ensure calculations used Michael’s current (increased) income; on remand the trial court reconsidered and left spousal and child support amounts unchanged.
- Appellate issues: whether imputing $108,531 to Cynthia was proper; whether trial court abused discretion by not increasing spousal/child support given Michael’s higher income; and whether an additional evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Cynthia's Argument | Michael's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imputing $108,531 annual income to Cynthia for spousal and child support was proper | Imputing physician-level income is unreasonable given Cynthia’s long absence from practice, failed board exams, and stated unwillingness/ inability to retrain | Imputation appropriate because Cynthia has prior physician experience, education, and ability to retrain and earn physician-level income | Court upheld imputation to $108,531 as within trial court’s discretion; affirmed on this point |
| Whether trial court should have increased spousal support using Michael’s current higher income | Spousal support should increase (Cynthia sought $8,000/mo) because Michael’s income nearly doubled, creating greater post-divorce income disparity | Trial court kept original award arguing factors (assets awarded to Cynthia, retraining potential, marital standard of living) justified unchanged support | Court found trial court abused discretion by failing to adjust spousal support in light of Michael’s substantially higher income; reversed on this point |
| Whether trial court should have increased child support using Michael’s current higher income | Child support should rise because joint AGI rose substantially and children should share in increased parental standard of living | Trial court retained original child support figure (case-by-case finding) and treated school tuition separately | Court held trial court abused discretion: failed to account for Michael’s higher income and did not clearly state joint obligation or how tuition credit was applied; reversed on this point |
| Whether additional evidentiary hearing was required on remand | Cynthia requested a new hearing to present further evidence after learning of Michael’s new salary | Michael and trial court argued parties had opportunity and could have sought hearing earlier; briefs were allowed | Court found denial of additional hearing not an abuse of discretion; Cynthia did not identify new evidence she would have presented; affirmed on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (trial court’s spousal-support discretion and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (standard for imputing income and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (appellate review standard for domestic-support awards)
- Schultz v. Schultz, 110 Ohio App.3d 715 (consideration of income disparity and children’s standard of living in support determinations)