Donlon v. Lineback
2016 Ohio 7739
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Pamela Donlon (Wife) and Charles Lineback (Husband) divorced in 2013; decree ordered Husband to divide stock in four companies and Wife to pay Husband spousal support of $1,230/month; Wife also had investment income of $36,948 at time of decree.
- Wife’s investment income dropped after CD maturities and lower post-2008 interest rates; by 2014 her interest/dividend income fell to under $14,000.
- Wife moved to modify her spousal-support obligation based on the decreased investment income; the matter was heard by a magistrate.
- Both parties filed contempt-related motions; Husband later withdrew his contempt motion; Wife alleged Husband failed to divide the ordered stock.
- Magistrate denied Wife’s modification request but found Husband in contempt and awarded Wife fees; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Both parties appealed: Wife challenged denial of modification; Husband raised multiple cross-assignments (findings/conclusions, evidence admission, contempt, and subpoenas/quash).
Issues
| Issue | Donlon's Argument | Lineback's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Wife proved a substantial change in circumstances to modify spousal support | Her investment income fell drastically from ~$37k to <$14k due to inability to replace high-yield CDs; she continued a conservative investment strategy and consulted advisors | Court should impute pre-decree investment income absent expert testimony showing lower realistic returns | Court reversed: trial court abused discretion by imputing income and requiring expert proof; remanded to recalculate support based on existing evidence |
| 2) Whether magistrate/trial court erred by not separately stating findings of fact and conclusions of law | Requested findings; argued decision lacked labeled findings | Magistrate set forth legal standards and factual findings within the decision | Overruled as to error: findings and legal basis were sufficiently presented for appellate review |
| 3) Whether certain exhibits (powerpoints/charts) were improperly admitted under the best-evidence rule | Exhibits summarized underlying documents but were duplicates; Wife offered exhibits for admission | Husband contended originals/authenticity not shown; argued best-evidence rule violated | Overruled: Husband failed to show a genuine issue as to authenticity or unfairness of duplicates; trial court did not abuse discretion admitting exhibits |
| 4) Whether the court erred in finding Husband in contempt and quashing subpoenas to attorneys | Wife sought enforcement of stock division and recovery of fees after Husband sold/repurchased stock and failed to cooperate | Husband argued lack of service (raised first on appeal) and challenged quash of subpoenas to probe attorneys holding funds | Contempt finding affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence Husband violated decree and fees awarded; service objection waived; quashing subpoenas was not an abuse—issue of escrowed funds should be pursued by motion, not subpoena |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (2009) (change-in-circumstances standard for modifying spousal support; change must be substantial and not contemplated)
- Gliozzo v. Univ. Urologists of Cleveland, Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 141 (2007) (issue and waiver of service raised first on appeal may be forfeited)