Ghanayem v. Ghanayem
2020 Ohio 423
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Darren (Husband) and Annalisa (Wife) married in 2000, one child born during marriage; divorce trial concluded May 21, 2018; final decree November 9, 2018.
- Husband is a high‑paid corporate executive whose compensation includes base salary, a Short Term Incentive (STI) bonus, and a Long Term Incentive Program (LTIP) paid in company stock (RSUs and PSUs).
- LTIP features: target 120% of base pay, RSUs vest periodically, PSUs "cliff vest"/are earned on a three‑year performance metric; vesting creates taxable events though actual sale may be restricted by company blackout and minimum‑holding rules.
- Wife sought to have LTIP treated as income for calculating child and spousal support; Husband argued the LTIP is a post‑divorce retirement/non‑assignable asset and raised tax/administrative concerns about sharing vested stock.
- Trial court treated LTIP as income for support: awarded Wife 34% of Husband’s gross LTIP as spousal support (for 60 months) and 7% of LTIP as child support; ordered procedural directions for payments and tax reporting.
- On appeal Husband raised four assignments of error (LTIP inclusion, uncapping child support, 2% processing fee, parenting time); Wife cross‑appealed two rulings (separate property retirement finding and spousal‑award language). Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether LTIP should be treated as income for child and spousal support | LTIP is income and should be included in gross income for support calculations | LTIP is a post‑divorce retirement/non‑qualified plan and should be excluded; tax/trading logistics require a specific methodology | Court held LTIP is income/bonus, not a protected retirement plan for these purposes; inclusion in support calculations was not an abuse of discretion |
| 2. Whether child‑support should be "uncapped" (combined parental income > $150,000) | Support should reflect child’s needs and standard of living; include bonuses (Wife) | Husband argued no evidence justified upward deviation and Wife has enough income | Court found trial court considered relevant factors and family lifestyle; affirmed child support amount and inclusion of bonuses |
| 3. Whether a 2% CSEA processing fee may be assessed on temporary support Husband paid directly to Wife | Wife: fee appropriate if CSEA must later process collections | Husband: fee improper because payments were made directly to Wife and thus not administered by CSEA | Court: assessment of fee is premature pending audit; if CSEA not required no fee; if CSEA collects later, fee proper; no error in reserving issue |
| 4. Whether trial court erred in limiting Husband’s summer parenting time to two weeks instead of five | Wife: keep child in Ohio school/activities; two weeks reasonable | Husband: five weeks needed for meaningful parenting time given residence in Florida | Court: trial court balanced R.C. 3109.051 factors (distance, child's preference, school/activities); no abuse of discretion in two‑week award |
| 5. Whether trial court erred finding Husband had separate‑property interests in premarital 401(k) accounts (Wife's cross‑appeal) | Wife: Husband failed to prove premarital balances and commingling; evidence insufficient | Husband: documentary balances and testimony showed premarital origin and no contributions/withdrawals after transfer | Court: manifest weight supports trial court’s finding that those 401(k) portions were Husband’s separate property; cross‑appeal denied |
| 6. Whether additional protective language should be added to spousal‑support award (Wife's cross‑appeal) | Wife: judgment should specify Wife gets 34% of all forms of Husband’s income to prevent employer re‑labeling or delayed vesting | Husband: (implicit) existing order ties payments to gross LTIP received during support term; relief not necessary | Court: not necessary; if income structure changes Wife may seek modification — no error |
Key Cases Cited
- The opinion primarily relies on Ohio appellate precedent and statutes, presented as Ohio slip opinions and domestic relations decisions; the opinion does not rely on authorities with official reporter citations to list here.