Benschoter v. Benschoter
2017 Ohio 8827
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Thomas (Husband) filed for divorce from Lara (Wife) after ~19 years of marriage; three minor children (then ~17½, 16, 13). A GAL and counselor were involved; children refused visitation with Husband.
- Magistrate issued temporary orders (Husband to pay child support and home-related expenses); parties litigated parenting time, child counseling, property division, spousal support, and tax exemptions.
- GAL recommended Wife as residential parent and recommended visitation, but reported the children were "adamant" they did not want to see Husband and counseling to reunify was unsuccessful.
- Trial court awarded Wife legal custody/residential parent, limited parenting time (every other Sunday/holiday 10 a.m.–4 p.m.), child support $919.06/month, awarded Wife the marital home (with an equalization payment to Husband), awarded Husband the HSA and tax refund, and ordered indefinite spousal support to Wife of $2,500/month (with reservation to modify).
- Trial court found Wife not voluntarily underemployed, considered R.C. 3105.18 factors, and found the limited visitation and spousal-support awards in the children’s/best-interest context.
- Court set Husband as permitted to claim children for federal tax purposes beginning 2017 (but omitted express allocation for 2016) and vacated the earlier $1,600 temporary reimbursement order against Husband.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by deviating from standard Local Rule 19 visitation and significantly reducing Husband's parenting time | Deviation requires parental unfitness or other non-standard circumstances; trial court abused discretion by limiting visitation | Best interest of children supports limited schedule where children refuse contact and counseling failed | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court considered R.C. 3109.051 factors (including childrens’ wishes, age, prior interactions) and reasonably limited visitation |
| Whether indefinite-duration spousal support was improper | Indefinite award unsupported; marriage <20 years so permanent support improper | Marriage ~19 years, Wife was primary caregiver and has limited earning capacity; retention of jurisdiction mitigates permanency concerns | Court: No abuse of discretion; indefinite support appropriate given near-20-year marriage, caregiver role, and retained jurisdiction to modify |
| Whether amount of spousal support ($2,500/month) was excessive or unsupported | Amount unjustified and creates negative cash flow for Husband; court failed to impute income to Wife per vocational report | Amount reflects statutory factors (income disparity, marriage duration, caregiver role); Wife not voluntarily underemployed | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court considered R.C. 3105.18 factors, assessed credibility, and permissibly declined to impute additional income to Wife |
| Allocation of 2016 child tax exemption | Trial court failed to designate 2016 exemption to Husband on decree; asks appellate modification | Wife argues she should be designated as custodial parent for exemptions | Court: Trial court omitted 2016 allocation; appellate court remanded to trial court to allocate 2016 exemption (declined to modify itself) |
| Allocation of future child tax exemptions (2017 onward) | Husband: trial court’s award to Husband acceptable; evidence supported best-interest findings | Wife: trial court failed to state R.C. 3119.82 findings and should have been designated as custodial parent | Court: Remanded for trial court to expressly state consideration of R.C. 3119.82 factors and findings as to best interest for 2017+ allocations |
| Wife’s cross-appeal: life insurance beneficiaries and reimbursement of counseling expenses | Wife seeks reimbursement and orders to keep children as beneficiaries | Husband conceded life-insurance error; trial court declined reimbursement claim | Court: Trial court’s refusal to reimburse for counseling paid from Husband’s marital HSA upheld; remanded to order Husband to maintain children as beneficiaries on life insurance policies |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (parenting-time determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (spousal-support principles re: duration)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (analysis of voluntary underemployment)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (trier of fact assesses witness credibility and weighs evidence)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals)