Choi v. Choi, 106 N.E.3d 908

Peter (64, unemployed dentist) and Miehyun Claire Choi (62, nurse anesthetist) divorced after 38 years of marriage; they have three adult children and substantial marital assets including retirement accounts, bank accounts, and multiple vehicles.
Wife filed for divorce Oct 2015; trial court awarded Wife spousal support to Husband of $2,100/month for 5 years and split retirement accounts equally; other accounts/vehicles remained with their respective owners.
Husband appealed, arguing the court failed to (1) consider Wife’s alleged voluntary underemployment and financial misconduct in setting spousal support, and (2) account for Wife’s depletion of marital assets when dividing property.
Evidence: Wife’s employer reduced hours in 2015 due to loss of a contract; Wife accepted an 8-hour weekly reduction (to avoid layoff/retirement). Wife made several pre‑filing expenditures (purchase of a Subaru in cash, charitable donations, transfers to adult children, a large credit‑card payment, and prior rollover of CDs into a money market account).
Trial court found it considered statutory factors for spousal support and made no finding of financial misconduct regarding asset depletion; Husband failed to prove wrongful intent or dissipation sufficient to alter the property division.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by not considering Wife’s voluntary reduction of employment and imputing income for spousal support	Wife voluntarily reduced income and court should impute $158,871 (relying on Collins)	Wife’s hours were reduced by employer during layoffs; reduction was employer‑driven and limited to 8 hrs/week to keep her employed	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — reduction was not voluntary/unilateral, no basis to impute income under R.C. 3105.18 for spousal support
Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to account for Wife’s alleged depletion/financial misconduct in property division	Wife withdrew/transferred funds (car purchase, donations, gifts, credit‑card payoff, missing CD proceeds) to deprive Husband; financial misconduct requires wrongful intent/dissipation	Transfers were legitimate (safe car purchase, prior pattern of gifts to children, charitable giving, routine credit‑card payments, CD proceeds used for expenses/children); no evidence of scienter or profit	Court affirmed: Husband failed to prove financial misconduct or wrongful intent; no dissipation award or adjustment required

(There are no key authorities in this opinion with official reporter citations suitable for Bluebook formatting.)