2012 Ohio 6293
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Married in 1987; three daughters, one minor born ~1996; Tracy was homemaker; family lived on Allen's salary; Allen worked in Virginia starting 2006; marital tensions grew and separation discussions occurred by 2008; Tracy filed for divorce Jan 14, 2011; magistrate recommended de facto termination date of Dec. 31, 2010 and spousal support of $3,000/month plus life-insurance designation to secure arrears; trial court adopted magistrate's recommendations.
- Court found it inequitable to use final hearing date; evidence supported a de facto termination date later than 2008 but not necessarily 2008; trial court chose Dec. 31, 2010 based on totality of circumstances and Ms. Cornelius’ testimony of ongoing hope for reconciliation.
- Court held that the life-insurance provision was intended to secure potential arrearages, not to create ongoing post-mortem support; reversed as to plain error due to lack of timely objection but remanded to clarify decree.
- Court affirmed spousal support award and its amount given factors including income disparity, health, and needs; however, duration of support deemed indefinite was reviewed for plain error and ultimately upheld given evidence of Mrs. Cornelius’ limited earning ability and absence of reasonable self-support prospects.
- Judgment affirmed; remanded to modify life-insurance provision clarity in the decree to reflect arrearage- securing purpose only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| De facto termination date appropriate? | Cornelius argues 2008 date should be used. | Cornelius contends bilateral end in 2008; court should adopt that date. | No abuse of discretion; Dec. 31, 2010 supported by totality of evidence. |
| Life insurance to secure spousal support | Husband argues provision violates RC 3105.18(B). | Provision should secure arrearage, not extend support post-death. | Not plain error; remanded to clarify extent of arrearage security. |
| Amount of spousal support | $3,000/month excessive given obligations. | Discretion to determine support amount supported by factors. | Not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. |
| Indefinite duration of spousal support | Indefinite duration excessive; should terminate at a certain date. | Court may award indefinite if payee cannot become self-supporting. | Plain error not shown; decision affirmed given evidence of non-self-sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (guides equitable distribution timing; focus on fairness of result)
- Liming v. Damos, 2009-Ohio-6490 (Ohio 2009) (defines ‘during the marriage’ for property valuation; de facto termination allowed for equity)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 2008-Ohio-6699 (Ohio 2008) (de facto termination date appropriate under totality of evidence)
- Machesky v. Machesky, 2011-Ohio-862 (Ohio 2011) (broad discretion in spousal support; factors support award)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1990) (terminating alimony on a date certain when self-support is possible)