Murphy v. Murphy
2016 Ohio 7504
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stephen W. Murphy III (born 1952) sued Patricia Murphy (born 1961) for divorce; marriage date July 1, 1989; separation around July 1, 1998; children were emancipated by filing.
- Parties stipulated to all issues except (1) whether spousal support should be awarded and (2) marriage duration/date of termination; no answer or counterclaim filed by Patricia.
- Stephen (appellee) earned about $36,403 in 2014, lives paycheck-to-paycheck, carries student-loan debt (~$27,000), and sought spousal support from date of marriage to hearing; he lives with a partner and shares some expenses.
- Patricia (appellant) earns substantially more (~$87,000/year), has employer benefits and retirement contributions, maintained separate finances since 1998, and argued the marriage effectively terminated at separation.
- Magistrate recommended $1,800/month spousal support for 98 months; trial court modified the duration to 36 months but otherwise awarded spousal support; Patricia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murphy) | Defendant's Argument (Patricia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper termination date of the marriage for spousal-support purposes | Marriage continues until the final hearing (Oct. 7, 2015); court may use that date | Marriage effectively terminated by separation on July 1, 1998; court should use that date | Court used Oct. 7, 2015 as termination date (no abuse of discretion) |
| Appropriateness, amount, and duration of spousal support | Spousal support appropriate given income disparity, age, debt, inability to save; requested support from marriage date | No spousal support should be awarded (or should be minimal) because parties separated in 1998 and Patricia significantly out-earned Stephen | Court awarded spousal support to Stephen; duration reduced to 36 months (approx. one-third of marriage up to separation); award not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (1990) (spousal-support review is for abuse of discretion)
- Hutta v. Hutta, 894 N.E.2d 1282 (5th Dist. 2008) (trial court need not expressly recount all R.C. 3105.18(C) evidence but must provide sufficient detail to permit review)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (1988) (trial court must set forth sufficient detail to enable appellate review of support awards)