130 N.E.3d 891
Oh. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Pickawa...2019Background
- Kathy Hodges (mid-50s, LPN) and Mark Hodges (physician) married in 1993; separated 2016; one minor child remains.
- Kathy largely a homemaker since 1999, kept LPN license and CEUs but has not worked full-time since the late 1990s; sporadically filled in at husband’s practice.
- Mark earns a substantial income as a physician; Kathy has limited recent earnings but received significant property/retirement distributions in the divorce.
- Magistrate awarded spousal support $3,000/mo for 84 months; trial court increased to $4,000/mo for 84 months and expressly declined to reserve jurisdiction to modify support.
- Kathy appealed, arguing the support should be indefinite per Kunkle exceptions and that the court erred by refusing to reserve modification jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal support must be indefinite (no termination date) | Hodges: marriage long; advanced age; homemaker with little opportunity → Kunkle exceptions require indefinite support | Court/Mark: Kathy has LPN credentials, work history, good health, resources and potential to become self-supporting → definite term appropriate | Court affirmed definite 84-month award; no abuse of discretion in setting termination date |
| Whether court must reserve jurisdiction to modify a definite-term support award | Hodges: 84 months is lengthy; unforeseen changes likely → court should reserve modification jurisdiction | Mark: trial court has discretion to refuse to retain jurisdiction | Court reversed: declining to reserve jurisdiction for an 84-month award was an abuse of discretion; remanded to reserve modification jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (1990) (sets framework favoring term-limited support unless payee lacks resources/ability to be self-supporting or other exceptions apply)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (1990) (appellate review of spousal support is for abuse of discretion)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128 (1989) (same standard re: spousal support review)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (1985) (definition of abuse of discretion as unreasonable/arbitrary/unconscionable)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (1988) (trial court must consider statutory factors and explain basis for spousal support)
- Nori v. Nori, 58 Ohio App.3d 69 (1989) (trial court must reserve jurisdiction to modify spousal support to allow future modifications when appropriate)