Bowman v. Bowman
2017 Ohio 4142
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties divorced by agreed decree in 2007; decree reserved the court's continuing jurisdiction to modify indefinite spousal support of $6,000/month.
- In 2006 (pre-divorce) Bowman earned about $254,441; Hayden earned about $49,505. By 2014 Bowman's income exceeded $300,000 while Hayden’s was about $36,795.
- Bowman filed a motion (2014) to modify/terminate spousal support; Hayden filed a cross-motion; a magistrate heard evidence and found a substantial change in circumstances but nevertheless kept the $6,000/month award.
- Trial court reviewed the record, held oral argument, and concluded there was no substantial change in circumstances under R.C. 3105.18(F), adopted the magistrate’s decision (as modified), and denied Bowman’s motion.
- Bowman appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and misapplied the statutory standard for a substantial change in circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hayden) | Defendant's Argument (Bowman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "substantial change in circumstances" occurred to permit modification of spousal support | Support should remain because Bowman’s increased expenses and work choices are voluntary and Hayden still needs support | Hourly rate fell and he must work excessive hours to maintain support; therefore circumstances are substantial and support should be reduced/terminated | Trial court: No substantial change under R.C. 3105.18(F); denied modification |
| Whether changes were involuntary/unanticipated and made the award unreasonable | Changes claimed by Bowman were voluntary and were not the kind contemplated by the statute | Decrease in hourly rate and increased expenses are material and have forced lifestyle/work changes | Trial court: Increases were voluntary post-divorce; not involuntary; not sufficient to justify modification |
| Burden of proof for modification jurisdictional prerequisites | Court should enforce statutory standard and deny reduction absent qualifying change | Bowman bears burden to prove reservation + substantial, unanticipated change; he met it by showing wage/hour changes | Court: Bowman did not meet statutory standard; competent evidence supported denial |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to modify support | Magistrate already found substantial change but still set same amount; trial court’s review of record supports its discretionary decision | Trial court abused discretion by rejecting magistrate’s substantial-change finding despite evidence of changed hourly rate and expenses | Appellate court: No abuse of discretion; affirmed trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (spousal-support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (Ohio 2009) (trial court must reserve jurisdiction and find a substantial, unanticipated change to modify spousal support)
- Joseph v. Joseph, 122 Ohio App.3d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (burden on movant to prove jurisdictional prerequisites for modification)
- Burkart v. Burkart, 191 Ohio App.3d 169 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (movant bears burden to show both substantial change and that existing award is no longer appropriate)