Meilen v. Meilen
2013 Ohio 4883
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Robert Meilen and Hilary Meilen divorced by judgment in 2007; Hilary was homemaker with minimal earnings potential, while Robert earned about $399,000 annually as CIO of Sports Authority.
- Divorce decree awarded Hilary $12,000 per month in spousal support plus a processing charge and 30% of Robert's yearly bonuses; the support term for bonuses terminated in 2016, but monthly spousal support had no fixed end date and could be modified.
- Hilary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003; by the time of divorce, she was cancer free but remained on anti-cancer medication and faced high health insurance costs through Robert's employer.
- In 2011, Robert was terminated from Sports Authority; he began a new job at Hunter Douglas with a lower salary (2011: $260,000; 2012: $270,000) and received a severance payment plus a company vehicle totaling over $1 million for 2011.
- Hilary began employment with a school district in 2008; her 2011 salary was $17,541, and she had health insurance costs of about $40 per month.
- Robert moved to modify spousal support in 2011, asking for an increase to $19,000 from April 2011 and a termination date; the magistrate recommended an increase for 2011 and a decrease starting 2012, which the trial court adopted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court increase spousal support without a motion for modification by Hilary? | Hilary argued no substantial change, so the court lacked jurisdiction and the current amount should remain. | Robert argued lack of jurisdiction and due process because the increase was not requested or noticed. | First assignment sustained; due process violations prevented increasing support without proper notice. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion by refusing to set a termination date for spousal support? | Robert contends the court should set a termination date; Hilary argued indefinite duration is appropriate given long marriage and homemaker status. | Robert argues for an end date; Hilary's position is that indefinite support is warranted. | Second assignment overruled; no abuse of discretion in not setting a termination date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009) (jurisdiction to modify spousal support after decree depends on changed circumstances and modification clause)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 2009-Ohio-4739 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 5th Dist., 2009) (due process prevents unrequested modification when issue not tried by consent)
- Evans v. Bainbridge Twp. Trustees, 5 Ohio St.3d 41 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983) (issues tried under Civ.R. 15(B) must be within scope of pleadings and consent)
- Bellamy v. Bellamy, 110 Ohio App.3d 576 (Ohio App.3d, 1996) (due process limits modification beyond what was brought before court)
- DiBari v. DiBari, 2009-Ohio-3437 (Ohio App.3d, 2009) (long marriages and homemaker spouses often justify indefinite spousal support)
- Ehni v. Ehni, 10th Dist. No. 94APF10-1530 (Ohio App.4th Dist., 1995) (in long marriages, indefinite spousal support can be reasonable)