Faidley v. Faidley
2012 Ohio 1670
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Ronald and Wanda Faidley were married for 49 years and filed for divorce in 2009; the cases were consolidated and Wife’s complaint was designated as a counterclaim.
- Prior to the final hearing, the parties reached agreement on all terms except spousal support, and a magistrate conducted the final hearing on July 7, 2010.
- The magistrate filed a proposed decision on July 16, 2010, and the trial court entered a decree of divorce adopting it, ordering $1,000 per month spousal support terminable upon the death of either party.
- The court also required Husband to designate Wife as the beneficiary on his life insurance for as long as spousal support was payable, and retained jurisdiction over the amount of support only.
- Husband objected to the magistrate’s decision; on January 19, 2011, the trial court overruled objections and reaffirmed the decree.
- Husband timely appealed, asserting three assignments of error challenging the amount of support, the life-insurance requirement, and the court’s failure to retain jurisdiction for changes in circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the spousal support amount was an abuse of discretion | Faidley contends the $1,000/month amount is excessive and punitive. | Faidley argues the court properly weighed the statutory factors and circumstances. | The assignment is overruled; the amount was within the court’s discretion. |
| Whether the court properly retained jurisdiction for changed circumstances | Faidley argues the court should have retained jurisdiction to modify or terminate support. | Faidley contends retention was appropriate given potential changes. | The assignment is overruled; the court did not abuse discretion in not retaining jurisdiction. |
| Whether requiring life insurance to secure a support obligation terminable by death was proper | Faidley asserts it was improper to secure a death-terminable support with life insurance. | Wife argues life-insurance to secure arrearage or ongoing support is permissible in some contexts. | The assignment is sustained and remanded to clarify the court’s intent regarding life insurance and termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard for spousal support)
- Vanderpool v. Vanderpool, 118 Ohio App.3d 876 (9th Dist. 1997) (consideration of R.C. 3105.18 factors in support awards)
- Moore v. Moore, 120 Ohio App.3d 488 (9th Dist. 1997) (factors and discretion in spousal support determinations)
- Schiesswohl v. Schiesswohl, 9th Dist. No. 21629, 2004-Ohio-1615 (2004) (life-insurance security for spousal support; necessity of express continuation terms)
- Karis v. Karis, 9th Dist. No. 23804, 2007-Ohio-759 (2007) (arbitrary vs. required continuation of support secured by life insurance where arrearage exists)
- Krone v. Krone, 9th Dist. No. 25450, 2011-Ohio-3196 (2011) (arrearage secured by life insurance permissible; reflects non-continuing support obligation)
- Schieve v. Schieve, 9th Dist. No. 05CA0037-M, 2005-Ohio-5190 (2005) (remand to clarify trial court’s intent when the order’s terms are ambiguous)