Budd v. Budd
2014 Ohio 4185
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Robert Budd (Husband) and Linda Munka (Wife) divorced after a long, procedurally complex litigation with multiple remands; primary disputes concerned valuation/date of termination of marriage, property division, and spousal support.
- The Court of Appeals previously determined the marriage terminated November 9, 2006, and directed the trial court to divide marital assets using values from the November 2006 hearing.
- On remand the trial court issued entries addressing division of assets, awarding Husband $1,500/month spousal support for 120 months, and a $185,758 lump-sum distributive award payable over ten years without interest or security.
- Wife appealed several discrete issues (omission of a gifted 1993 GMC truck value, inclusion of excess survivorship benefits, alleged commingling of support with property division, failure to provide interest/security on long-term payment, and termination events for support).
- Husband cross-appealed, arguing the spousal support award should have an effective/retroactive date (he sought November 9, 2006).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court omitted $4,233 1993 GMC truck from marital division | Truck value was marital and should have been included | Truck was gifted to son in 2006; Wife never timely raised error below or on prior appeals | No reversible error; Wife forfeited challenge by not timely raising it |
| Inclusion of "excess survivorship benefits" without expert or stipulation | Court erred to include/assign value absent expert testimony or stipulation | Benefits were addressed in post-hearing pension report filed June 2008; parties anticipated those reports and Wife did not object below | Forfeited on appeal; trial court permissibly relied on submitted report; assignment overruled |
| Commingling spousal support with property division (offsetting) | Trial court again impermissibly commingled/offset support and property division contrary to prior remand | Trial court did not actually offset on remand and attempted to follow prior directions; placement in entry is imperfect form only | No abuse of discretion as to substance; assignment overruled |
| Property division payment terms: ten-year payment without interest or security | Award is inequitable because Husband can pay over 10 years with no interest or security; trial court gave no justification | Trial court has discretion in structuring payments | Reversed in part: court abused discretion by allowing ten-year payments with no interest or security; remand for appropriate treatment |
| Termination events for spousal support and effective date | Support should terminate on Wife’s death and Husband’s remarriage; effective date should be retroactive to Nov. 9, 2006 | Trial court’s entry already states support terminates on Husband’s death; Wife’s death not explicitly excluded (statute defaults termination on death); court retained jurisdiction to modify on remarriage; Husband provided no authority for retroactive award | Wife’s death: spousal support terminates by statute absent express contrary language; remarriage: no abuse because court retained jurisdiction to modify; Husband’s request for retroactivity denied for lack of authority and for failure to request below |
Key Cases Cited
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (date of marriage termination may be determined by parties’ conduct and is often difficult to pinpoint)
- Koegel v. Koegel, 69 Ohio St.2d 355 (Ohio 1982) (trial court must make equitable division of marital property)
- Kimble v. Kimble, 97 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2002) (trial court need not automatically terminate spousal support on recipient’s remarriage where it retains jurisdiction to modify)