Benjelloun v. Benjelloun
2012 Ohio 5353
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Kristi M. Benjelloun (Wife) and Mounssif O. Benjelloun (Husband) married February 7, 1994; two children Amari (1996) and Adam (2001); separation February 2009; divorce proceedings began March 23, 2011; final hearing November 1, 2011 addressed property and parenting.
- Trial court found Wife would be residential parent; Husband would have parenting time with 72 hours' notice.
- Wife's income ~$33,000/year; Husband's income ~$85,000/year with $10,000 in bonuses in first half of 2011; Husband anticipated job loss.
- Child support ordered at $535.26/month per child ($1,070.53 total), based on incomes; Wife not awarded spousal support at decree; marital debts divided; Husband to assume marital debt on six parcels.
- Wife appeals on three assignments: (1) miscalculation of Husband's gross income for support (bonus treatment); (2) lack of spousal support; (3) error valuing a Delta Community Visa debt at $289.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Husband’s gross income properly calculated for child support? | Husband’s bonuses should be included per R.C. 3119.05(D). | Bonuses should be excluded if non-recurring; no proof of continued bonuses. | Court erred by excluding past bonuses; remanded for recalculation of gross income and child support. |
| Should Wife have been awarded spousal support? | Evidence of need and long marriage supports spousal support. | Trial court has broad discretion; no need shown given parity and multiple factors. | Remanded for reconsideration of spousal support after new child support/order income determinations. |
| Was the Delta Visa debt properly valued at $289? | Debt valuation at separation date ($289) should be corrected if evidence shows post-separation marital use. | Debt valuation at separation date binding unless proven post-separation marital use. | Deemed not adequately litigated; affirmed value as of separation; no error to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. Ornelas, 2012-Ohio-4106 (12th Dist. (Ohio) 2012) (bonuses must be included if not proven non-recurring)
- Kedanis v. Kedanis, 2012-Ohio-3533 (12th Dist. (Ohio) 2012) (consider all 3105.18(C)(1) factors; need is one factor among many)
- Carnahan v. Carnahan, 118 Ohio App.3d 393 (12th Dist. (Ohio) 1997) (overruled; need is not the sole determining factor)
- Brown v. Brown, 2009-Ohio-2204 (12th Dist. (Ohio) 2009) (requires record to show application of spousal support factors)
- Kreilick v. Kreilick, 2005-Ohio-3041 (6th Dist. (Ohio) 2005) (court must indicate basis for awards aligns with factors)