Jennings v. Jennings, 2017 Ohio 8974

Parties married in 1982; Susan Jennings filed for divorce in November 2014. The parties executed a settlement memorandum resolving property division; it expressly left VA disability benefits to Joseph Jennings.
Parties could not agree on spousal support, attorney fees, court costs, and “expense money”; those issues went to trial in 2016 and the trial court entered a decree on September 23, 2016.
The trial court considered all sources of income under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a), including Joseph’s non‑taxable VA disability benefits, and awarded permanent spousal support ($1,000/month from April 2015, reduced to $750/month from June 2016).
The court found Joseph received a spouse‑dependent allowance component of $145/month and had retained $4,350 of that allowance since separation; the court treated VA benefits as part of the income stream for spousal support.
The court awarded Susan $9,000 in trial‑related attorney fees, $683 expenses, and all court costs, citing Joseph’s refusal to accept that VA benefits must be included as income and his prolonging the litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal law (USFSPA/38 U.S.C.) preempts state courts from considering VA disability benefits when awarding spousal support	Jennings (plaintiff) argued the court properly considered all income, including non‑taxable VA benefits, under R.C. 3105.18	Joseph (defendant) argued federal statutes and Supreme Court precedent bar using VA disability benefits in divorce‑related monetary awards (relying on USFSPA, 38 U.S.C. §5301, Mansell, Howell)	Court held federal preemption prevents dividing VA benefits as property but does not bar considering VA disability benefits as income for spousal support; trial court acted properly to include them
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs based on defendant’s stance about VA benefits	Jennings argued fees were equitable given defendant’s conduct and prolonging litigation	Joseph contended he was correct on the law and thus fees were improper	Court held defendant was incorrect as to the law and the fee award was within the trial court’s discretion under R.C. 3105.73

Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (state courts may not treat military retirement waived for VA disability as divisible property)
Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017) (applies Mansell to post‑divorce waivers; courts may account for waiver contingencies when setting support)
Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (family courts may consider asset contingencies when calculating support)