Potter v. Potter
2014 Ohio 5490
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Cynthia and Steven Potter divorced after a ~32-year marriage; three children were emancipated.
- Husband owns an accounting firm (Steven Potter & Company CPAs, Inc. — SPC). Parties stipulated SPC’s marital value at $264,000 (valuation used a multiple‑of‑revenue method, subtracted a purchase debt and applied a marketability discount).
- Trial court awarded Wife 50% of SPC’s value in property division, awarded Wife the marital residence, ordered Husband to assume marital debt, and ordered Husband to pay Wife $53,104.49 as part of the division.
- For spousal support the court used Husband’s 2012 tax return income ($100,177) and imputed $21,000 to Wife, then ordered Husband to pay $3,167/month indefinitely.
- Both parties appealed: Husband argued the court impermissibly “double‑dipped” (valuing SPC and using the same income stream for spousal support); Wife raised three cross‑assignments contesting (1) the imputation of income to her, (2) the court’s calculation of Husband’s income, and (3) the allocation of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Double‑dipping: using same income stream to value SPC and to calculate spousal support | N/A (Husband raised this) | Using SPC income for both valuation and spousal support results in Husband paying Wife twice. | Court: Husband waived the argument by not raising it below; no abuse of discretion found. |
| 2. Imputation of income to Wife | Wife: Trial court erred in finding her voluntarily unemployed and imputing $21,000. | Court should impute because Wife is educated, in good health, has marketable skills, declined vocational help, and had minimal recent earnings. | Court: No abuse of discretion; imputation to $21,000 is supported by factors. |
| 3. Inclusion of all Husband income sources for support | Wife: Husband’s income should include salary plus SPC’s discretionary earnings reflected in the stipulated valuation. | Husband: Court reasonably accepted his 2012 tax return absent forensic accounting or evidence of concealment. | Court: No abuse of discretion; without expert proof of concealed income, using tax return was appropriate. |
| 4. Attorney fees allocation | Wife: Court should have awarded her attorney fees because Husband paid counsel from business account that affected SPC valuation. | Husband: No evidence fees were paid before SPC valuation; Wife has assets and former income to cover fees. | Court: No abuse of discretion; each party responsible for own fees given property/spousal awards and lack of record support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (1993) (trial court has discretion to determine whether a parent is voluntarily underemployed when imputing income)