2012 Ohio 2161
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Nancy and Gary Haren married September 25, 1981; two children born from marriage.
- Nancy filed for divorce October 23, 2007; Gary answered November 1, 2007; trial occurred June 2, 2008.
- Trial issues included spousal support, marital residence allocation, and division of household assets; testimony showed Nancy earned $49,086.72 in 2007 and Gary received $14,508 in Social Security benefits, with pensions valued at $47,000 for Nancy and $12,049 for Gary.
- Initial divorce decree (Sept. 18, 2008) awarded the marital residence to Nancy, no spousal support, and asset division per a trial exhibit.
- This decision was reversed in part on appeal (Haren I) and remanded; after remand, a new decree (June 7, 2010) awarded Gary spousal support of $400/month for 100 months, Nancy the residence, and an equalization payment of $43,738.50 with sale as a possible means to fund it.
- On remand, Haren II (Feb. 22, 2011) affirmed the decision with a separate concurrence; subsequent contempt proceedings were initiated by Gary (April 11, 2011) alleging Nancy failed to comply with property division and spousal support timing; magistrate found Nancy in contempt for late spousal support payments but not for the equalization payment, and ordered various compliance deadlines and a purge amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt finding on spousal support payments | Nancy argues the contempt finding related to spousal support transfer was improper | Gary asserts contempt finding proper and supports enforcement of spousal support orders | Contempt finding sustained against Nancy for spousal support timing; remand for related attorney fees |
| Interest on unpaid property division | Nancy argues trial court properly denied interest | Gary contends interest should have been awarded on the property division | No abuse of discretion; no award of interest on property division |
| Attorney fees for contempt regarding spousal support | Nancy does not prevail; argues no fee entitlement | Gary contends fees should be awarded under R.C. 3105.18(G) | Cross-appellant Gary's second assignment sustained; remand to assess attorney fees related to contempt for spousal support |
Key Cases Cited
- Koegel v. Koegel, 69 Ohio St.2d 355 (1982) (court may award interest on property division obligations; abuse of discretion standard)
- Cronin v. Cronin, 2005-Ohio-301 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. 2005) (review of interest decision in contempt context under abuse of discretion)
- Rand v. Rand, 18 Ohio St.3d 356 (1985) (attorney fees generally within trial court's discretion)