2019 Ohio 2810
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Jeff and Julie Reese married in 2002, had three children, separated in March 2016, and Jeff filed for divorce in April 2016. Shared parenting was ordered in August 2017. A property/support trial occurred November 28, 2017; final decree entered December 14, 2017.
- The trial court ordered a $75,000 lump-sum spousal-support payment (to be deducted from the equalization of marital assets), monthly child support of $1,014.50, and sale of the marital home with the first $118,223.13 of proceeds paid to Julie’s parents.
- Jeff appealed and filed a Civ.R. 60(B) post-decree motion contesting the award of marital-home proceeds to Julie’s parents; this court remanded for the limited purpose of ruling on that motion.
- The trial court granted Jeff’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion on the ground of mistake (mistaken testimony by Julie and her mother) and awarded Jeff attorney fees for pursuing the motion; Jeff requested findings of fact and conclusions, which the court later issued.
- On appeal this court: dismissed Jeff’s appeal from the 60(B) relief (no aggrievement), affirmed the decree in part, reversed the lump-sum spousal-support award as an improper distributive-award-in-disguise, and affirmed the child-support determination (Julie not voluntarily underemployed). The cause was remanded to recalculate spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reese) | Defendant's Argument (Reese) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Basis for Civ.R. 60(B) relief: fraud vs. mistake | Relief should be granted under Civ.R. 60(B)(3) for fraud/misrepresentation | Relief was appropriate under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) for mistake (mistaken testimony) | Court granted relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) but Jeff lacked standing to appeal that grant, so appeal of 60(B) entry dismissed |
| 2. Lump-sum spousal support labeled as distributive award | Court erred by ordering $75,000 lump-sum spousal support (effectively a distributive award/punishment) | Trial court may consider spouse’s financial conduct when fashioning support; awarded lump sum | Reversed: trial court abused discretion—award functioned as a punitive distributive award and must be recalculated consistent with R.C. 3105.18 and property division principles |
| 3. Child support: whether Julie was voluntarily underemployed | Jeff argued Julie voluntarily reduced income and income should be imputed | Julie argued reduction was voluntary but reasonable and taken to care for children; not voluntary underemployment for imputation | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; record supports finding Julie’s reduced employment was objectively reasonable and not subject to income imputation |
| 4. Standing to appeal the 60(B) order | Jeff proceeded to appeal the 60(B) entry | Trial court’s 60(B) entry relieved Jeff, so he is not aggrieved by that order | Appeal from the 60(B) entry dismissed for lack of standing (only aggrieved parties may appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Contract Carriers Assn. v. Pub. Utilities Comm., 140 Ohio St. 160, 42 N.E.2d 758 (Ohio 1942) (only an aggrieved party may appeal a final order)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 616 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio 1993) (trial court’s voluntary-underemployment factual determination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Young v. Durrani, 61 N.E.3d 34 (1st Dist. 2016) (standing requirement: appeal lies only to aggrieved party)