Komes v. Komes
2013 Ohio 2140
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Married 1984; three emancipated children; husband owned Power Alarm Systems; wife homemaker with a G.E.D.; multiple real estate and investment assets acquired during marriage.
- Husband fathered a child with another woman in 2005 and paid child support; wife obtained a temporary protective order in 2009.
- Magistrate valued Power Alarm at $650,000 and divided assets; court adjusted spousal support and distributed real estate and liquid assets.
- Trial court found husband dissipated marital funds related to the 2005 child and awarded wife $31,500 for that dissipation; ordered spousal support of $7,000/month for seven years.
- Parties challenged various asset valuations, dissipation awards, premarital property treatment, and attorney-fee allocations; the appeals were consolidated and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Final judgment of divorce affirmed with modifications to spousal support and asset distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spousal support amount and duration | Komes argues support is excessive; wife argues it should follow magistrate. | Komes contends income and needs were miscalculated; wife is overcompensated. | No abuse of discretion; award reasonable and supported by evidence. |
| Dissipation award for 2005 child | Komes disputes $31,500 dissipation award. | Wife supports award as compensation formisconduct. | Within trial court’s broad discretion; upheld. |
| Premarital interest in White Road property | Property was premarital; dissipation not fully proven. | Premarital equity was $33,000; wife entitled to $22,650. | No abuse; premarital value allocated correctly. |
| Attorney-fee award | Wife should pay attorney fees; not equitable to burden husband. | Husband’s conduct and discovery delays justified fee allocation. | Award supported by evidence; not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Worthington v. Worthington, 21 Ohio St.3d 73, 488 N.E.2d 150 (1986) (Ohio Supreme Court (1986)) (increase in value of separate property may be martial when satisfies merit criteria)
- Burkart v. Burkart, 173 Ohio App.3d 252, 2007-Ohio-3992 (Ohio App. Dist. 10 (2007)) (sole shareholder may create potential for ‘creative accounting’ reducing apparent income)
- SchoSchild v. Schalk, Schalk v. Schalk, 2008-Ohio-829 (Third Dist. 2008) (liquid assets distribution as factor in spousal support)
- O’Grady v. O’Grady, 2004-Ohio-3504 (Ohio App. Dist. (2004)) (presence of liquid assets can affect spousal support)