Coward v. Coward
2016 Ohio 670
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Jeffrey and Susan Coward were married 23 years and have three children; one minor at time of proceedings. Husband filed for divorce in March 2014.
- Wife was a long-term homemaker who later worked full-time as an eye technician earning about $13.65/hr; limited formal education (one year of college).
- Magistrate previously ordered temporary support; parties submitted a settlement as to most issues but left spousal and child support for the court.
- Trial court awarded spousal support to Wife: $2,800/month until the marital residence sold, then $2,000/month thereafter; retained jurisdiction over amount/duration with no termination date.
- Trial court set child support at $621.56/month but used $24,000/year as Husband’s annual spousal-support deduction (based on $2,000/month) rather than $33,600/year (based on $2,800/month) which was the amount actually payable until the house sold.
- Husband appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not setting a definite termination date for spousal support and (2) child support was miscalculated by using the lower spousal-support figure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not setting a definite termination date for spousal support | Coward: Court should set a date-certain termination | Susan: Indefinite support appropriate given marriage length, Wife's employment history and limited earning potential | Affirmed — indefinite spousal support permissible given 23-year marriage, Wife’s homemaker history, limited earnings, and court retained jurisdiction to modify |
| Whether child support was miscalculated by not using the actual current spousal-support payment | Coward: Child support must be computed using the actual $2,800/mo spousal-support payment (annual $33,600) | Susan: Trial court used $24,000 (based on post-sale $2,000/mo) for worksheet | Reversed — remanded to recalculate child support using the correct annual spousal-support amount actually being paid ($33,600) until the house sells |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1990) (a spousal-support award for non-long-term marriages ordinarily should terminate on a date certain)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (child-support orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (child-support statute’s provisions are mandatory and designed to serve the child’s best interests)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (trial courts must follow child-support statute literally and technically in material aspects)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- Vanke v. Vanke, 93 Ohio App.3d 373 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (long-duration marriages can justify indefinite spousal support)