2022 Ohio 533
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Jessica (wife) and Matt Mayer married in 2000; three children (one emancipated). Divorce filed 2018 after final separation in 2017.
- Jessica is a senior Cardinal Health executive: 2020 base salary $575,000; 2020 cash bonus $559,061; long-term incentive plan (LTIP) awards (RSUs and PSUs) with target value $1,500,000 and multi-year vesting/funding rules.
- Matt earned about $125,000 post-separation; he remained in the marital home with children; Jessica bought a nearby home.
- At bench trial, parties disputed whether Jessica’s annual cash bonus and LTIP stock awards should be treated as income or property for child- and spousal-support calculations.
- Trial court: included cash bonus in Jessica’s spousal-support income but excluded LTIP from both child- and spousal-support gross income; awarded child support and spousal support and granted Jessica 40% of any proceeds from a book Matt “is writing or plans to write.”
- Matt appealed; the Tenth District reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion in excluding LTIP from support calculations and erred in awarding a share of speculative future book proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jessica) | Defendant's Argument (Matt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jessica's LTIP and annual cash bonuses must be included in gross income for child support | LTIP awards (especially those granted post-marriage) are property or nonrecurring/uncertain and may be excluded from gross income | All three compensation components (salary, cash bonus, LTIP) are income and must be captured for child-support worksheet; excluding them lacks statutory basis | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by excluding cash bonus and LTIP; child-support calculation must include applicable bonuses per statute and use worksheet unless proper deviation with findings is made |
| Whether Jessica's post-marital LTIP should be included in gross income for spousal support | Post-marital LTIPs are separate property (not marital) and thus should not be counted as income for spousal-support calculations | LTIP compensation is essentially bonus income and should be included (tiered approach to avoid double-dipping) | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by excluding LTIP entirely; LTIPs are treated as bonus income for spousal-support purposes; remand to evaluate probability, vesting/funding, tax consequences, and avoid double-dipping |
| Whether court may award Jessica 40% of any income from a book Matt "is writing or plans to write" | (Trial court granted) future book proceeds can be captured as income for spousal support | Future, non-existent book/proceeds are speculative expectancy and not divisible marital property | Reversed: award of 40% of proceeds of a book not yet written (speculative future property) was error; future speculative property cannot be divided as marital property |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (domestic-relations courts have broad discretion in divorce matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128 (Ohio 1989) (appellate court should not reweigh evidence)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (appellate review of discretionary family-court decisions)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (trial court may not base spousal-support decision on a single factor)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (courts must follow statutory child-support requirements in material respects)