2019 Ohio 5138
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Lori A. Johnson filed for legal separation April 8, 2016 and later amended to divorce; an agreed temporary magistrate order (effective April 8, 2016) required Darrell L. Johnson to pay temporary spousal support (monthly payment due the 8th) until further court order.
- Divorce trial occurred Dec. 3, 4, and 6, 2018; transcript is not in the record.
- The trial court's Dec. 10, 2018 divorce decree set the marriage termination date as April 6, 2018, incorporated the magistrate’s temporary support order "through April 7, 2018," and determined appellee owed $24,000 in temporary support, with $9,600 remaining after credits.
- Appellant timely filed a Civ.R. 52 request (Dec. 17, 2018) asking the court to state findings explaining why temporary support terminated April 7, 2018 rather than the final hearing/date of decree.
- Trial court denied the Civ.R. 52 request (Jan. 10, 2019), finding the 19‑page divorce decree already contained sufficient findings; appellant appealed that denial to the Tenth District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court erred by denying a timely Civ.R. 52 request for limited findings on the termination date used to calculate temporary spousal support arrearage | Johnson: The court picked April 7, 2018 without explanation; Civ.R. 52 required specific findings because the end date materially affected arrearage ($8,000 difference). | Trial court/Johnson (below): The divorce decree already contains detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for appellate review. | Court: Denial was proper — the decree, read with the record, sufficiently explained the April 7, 2018 date; Civ.R. 52 relief not required. |
| 2. Whether the court abused discretion or misapplied law by terminating temporary spousal support through April 7, 2018 rather than the final hearing date (and failing to make R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)(b) findings) | Johnson: Under case law and R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)(b), the usual termination date is the final hearing/decree; an earlier "de facto" termination requires findings on equitable factors. | Trial court: The selected date aligns with the decree’s termination date of the marriage (Apr. 6, 2018) and the incorporation of the temporary order "through April 7, 2018;" appellant did not timely raise the R.C. 3105.171 argument below. | Court: Issue either lacks merit (date ties to marriage termination) or is waived (R.C. 3105.171 argument raised first on appeal); assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Gibson, 23 Ohio St.3d 170 (1986) (purpose of findings is to assist appellate review; Civ.R. 52 duty to provide findings when timely requested)
- Werden v. Crawford, 70 Ohio St.2d 122 (1982) (role of findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- Rose Chevrolet v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (appellant bears duty to provide a record necessary for review; omissions lead to presumption of regularity)
- State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cincinnati, 125 Ohio St.3d 385 (2010) (test for whether opinion satisfies Civ.R. 52: whether record and opinion together provide an adequate basis for review)
- Walker v. Doup, 36 Ohio St.3d 229 (1988) (tolling of appeal deadline where timely Civ.R. 52 request is filed)
- Brandon/Wiant Co. v. Teamor, 135 Ohio App.3d 417 (1999) (Civ.R. 52 sufficiency test: whether opinion and record permit appellate resolution)
- Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 160 Ohio App.3d 564 (2005) (failure to comply with Civ.R. 52 can be reversible error)