Budd v. Munka
2019 Ohio 1972
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Marriage ended after ~30 years; trial court initially issued property division and ordered Wife (Linda Budd, nka Munka) to pay spousal support to Husband (Robert Budd). Multiple appeals and remands ensued.
- July 2013 entry: Wife ordered to pay $1,500/month for 120 months (spousal support); Husband ordered to pay Wife $185,758 in installments of $1,548/month for 120 months (property-division award). No interest or security required on the award.
- This Court previously found the 2013 entry deficient for failing to explain why lump-sum payment, interest, or security were not required and remanded.
- On remand (Oct. 2017) the trial court: (1) declined to require Husband to pay interest or obtain insurance to secure the property award, reasoning it would be inequitable given Wife’s seven-year avoidance of spousal-support payments and the high cost of premiums; (2) denied Wife’s motions to terminate her spousal-support obligation and to require Husband to pay her spousal support.
- Financial facts at 2017 hearing: Husband ~ $50,000 annual income, 401(k) ≈ $132,000, ~$23,000 checking; trial court concluded Husband could not make a lump-sum payment and that security/interest would be inequitable.
Issues
| Issue | Budd's Argument | Munka's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by permitting 10-year payments on property award with no interest or security | Husband could not be forced to lump-sum; trial court’s plan was equitable | Wife argued Husband could pay lump-sum (via 401k), should pay interest or provide security (or QDRO transfer) | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably found lump-sum impracticable and security/interest inequitable |
| Whether trial court erred by counting Wife’s nonrecurring investment income in spousal-support calculation and excluding some of Husband’s SS income | Wife argued nonrecurring income should be excluded; Husband’s SS was understated | Court: child-support statute exclusion doesn’t apply to spousal support; income from all sources may be considered; Wife is precluded from relitigating Husband’s prior income finding | Court affirmed: inclusion of Wife’s investment income proper; Wife barred from re-challenging earlier income determination |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Wife’s motion to terminate spousal support for change of circumstances | Wife asserted substantial income decrease due to retirement and higher healthcare costs | Trial court relied on income history (2013–2015) and found no qualifying change when motion was filed in 2015 | Court affirmed: Wife failed to show change of circumstances effective when motion filed and failed to preserve argument tied to 2016 retirement |
| Whether trial court erred by denying Wife’s motion for spousal support (i.e., to make Husband pay her support) | Wife sought reversal of denial | Trial court denied; Wife’s brief lacked record citations and authority | Court affirmed and overruled assignment for failure to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)