Henderson v. Henderson, 2013 Ohio 2820

Background

Divorce of Troy H. Henderson, Sr. and Ethel M. Henderson; September 29, 2010 judgment included a separation agreement disputing assets and debts.
April 1, 2011 relief-from-judgment motion claimed the separation agreement failed to dispose of certain assets/debts; trial court granted relief.
March 21, 2012 parties executed an agreement vacating the 2010 decree except for the divorce itself; August 30, 2012 hearing scheduled.
July 24, 2012 counsel for appellant withdrew; August 20, 2012 pro se continuance request denied after multiple prior continuances.
August 30, 2012 magistrate issued decision dividing property and ordering $1,000 monthly spousal support for 66 months; October 29, 2012 trial court adopted magistrate’s decision.
Appellant filed a pro se appeal raising ten assignments of error challenging income calculation, spousal support duration/amount, and other alleged misconduct; appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in spousal-support calculation.	Henderson argues trial court erred in how gross income was determined and in authorizing garnishment.	Henderson contends the court properly considered income sources and did not abuse discretion.	No reversible error; calculations and duration supported by record.
Whether the court erred in not finding perjury/contempt by appellee.	Henderson asserts appellee perjured herself and should be held in contempt.	Court found no perjury or false representation by appellee.	No merit to perjury/contempt findings.
Whether the court properly permitted pro se status and ruled on continuances.	Henderson argues denial of continuances and coercion to proceed pro se.	Court acted within discretion; multiple continuances had been granted previously.	No abuse of discretion; no constitutional right to counsel in domestic relations matter.
Whether the division of marital debts/assets and the Clark Road home lien were proper.	Henderson challenges allocation of debts and the $57,000 lien against the home.	Court properly allocated assets/debts; lien arising outside marital debt.	Assignments rejected; distribution upheld.
Whether failure to value appellee's licensure income affected spousal support.	Appellant contends appellee’s gross income should include beautician income.	Appellee's license was inactive and not reasonably income-producing.	No error in not treating appellee as earning a beautician income.

Key Cases Cited

Lopshire v. Lopshire, 2008-Ohio-5946 (11th Dist. 2008) (pro se leniency and continuance discretion discussed)
Allen v. Allen, 2010-Ohio-475 (11th Dist. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing magistrate decisions)
In re Rickels, 2004-Ohio-2353 (3rd Dist. 2004) (pro se litigant standards and civil-procedure application)