Cross v. Cross
54 N.E.3d 756
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Johannah and Douglas Cross divorced after a ~27-year marriage; appeal challenges distribution of marital property, debts, spousal support, child support, and GAL fees. Trial court awarded Douglas spousal support payments of $1,250/month for 96 months and ordered various asset/debt allocations. Appeal affirmed.
- At divorce, Douglas (55) earned ~$172,900 as a sales manager and received intermittent bonuses; Johannah (47) earned ~$55,308 as a teacher plus ~$9,064 tutoring and held bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned during the marriage.
- The court treated sporadic employer bonuses as marital assets only for the 2014 bonus (one-half after-tax for Johannah) and declined to average past bonuses into Douglas’s income for spousal-support purposes. 2015+ future bonuses were not awarded as marital property.
- Court found Douglas used some bonus proceeds to fund children’s go-karting hobby but did not personally profit; it declined to award a distributive award for alleged financial misconduct and apportioned certain debts and responsibilities between the parties.
- The trial court allocated credit-card debts to the named cardholder, apportioned student loans taken for an adult child as marital debt, denied reimbursement for certain home repair costs to Johannah, and ordered the parties to equally share guardian ad litem fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cross) | Defendant's Argument (Cross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spousal support amount/duration | Award ($1,250/mo for 96 months) is too low and too short given income disparity and 27‑yr marriage | Court properly exercised discretion; income calculation reasonable | Affirmed: court’s findings supported by credible evidence and statutory factors; no abuse of discretion |
| Inclusion of Douglas’s bonuses as income | Bonuses should be averaged into Douglas’s income for support | Bonuses were sporadic; may be treated as marital asset rather than recurring income | Affirmed: court permissibly excluded sporadic bonuses from income and treated 2014 bonus as divisible marital asset |
| Financial misconduct / distributive award | Douglas misappropriated bonus funds for children’s hobby — warrants distributive award | Expenditures benefited children; Douglas did not personally profit or conceal bonuses | Affirmed: trial court found no wrongful dissipation amounting to financial misconduct |
| Division/allocation of debts and assets (credit cards, student loans, insurance, restricted stock, point‑of‑sale repairs) | Various challenges: e.g., credit card debt should be marital; student loans unfairly apportioned; life policies/assets not split equally; reimbursement for repairs | Court allocated debts to named cardholder, treated student loans incurred during marriage as marital debt to be divided, ordered life policies maintained for child, awarded restricted stock to Douglas as valueless now | Affirmed: allocations within trial court’s equitable discretion; findings not against manifest weight |
| Child support | $592.50/mo for youngest child is insufficient given prior lifestyle | Amount computed by worksheet; court followed R.C. 3119.04(B) for high‑income cases and exercised discretion | Affirmed: amount consistent with statutory framework and court’s discretion |
| Guardian ad litem fees | Should not be equally split; Douglas can pay more | Equal apportionment reasonable; appellant failed to properly brief issue | Affirmed: assignment overruled for inadequate briefing and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (no mathematical formula for spousal support; bonuses during marriage may be marital assets)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1990) (trial court has broad discretion in amount/duration of spousal support)
- Middendorf v. Middendorf, 82 Ohio St.3d 397 (Ohio 1998) (spousal‑support order will not be overturned if supported by some competent, credible evidence)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (Ohio 1981) (presumption of equal division of marital property)
- Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509 (Ohio 2012) (inability to pay is defense in contempt for failure to pay support)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (trial court must exercise equitable discretion in domestic relations matters)