2020 Ohio 4881
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Melissa and Luke Schwieterman married in 2001, separated August 5, 2015, and divorced by decree in 2019; two minor children share equal parenting time.
- Luke worked full time for Cargill; Melissa is a registered nurse who worked full‑time early in the marriage but part‑time (variable hours) from 2009 onward.
- In 2012 Melissa received a $500,000 gift from her grandparents; she invested ~$400,000 in a Wells Fargo account and later transferred $425,000 to her parents as alleged loans (no written terms); ~$104,158 remained in the investment account by 2018.
- The magistrate found Melissa voluntarily underemployed, annualized her earned income at $11,795.88, and imputed additional income from (a) the Wells Fargo account ($5,207.92 using a 5% rate) and (b) the $425,000 transfers to parents ($21,250 imputed at 5%).
- Combined parental income was calculated at $224,500.63; the magistrate set an overall child‑support obligation of $29,765.82 and, after offsets for shared parenting, ordered Luke to pay Melissa $3,880.14 annually.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings, used August 5, 2015 as the de facto marriage termination date for property valuation, and denied Melissa spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Imputing income for child/spousal support | Melissa: Luke failed to prove she was voluntarily underemployed and court improperly imputed income from income‑producing assets/loans. | Luke: Evidence shows Melissa chose part‑time work, had capacity to work full time, and shifted income‑producing assets into non‑producing loans. | Court: Affirmed imputation — substantial evidence Melissa was voluntarily underemployed; imputation from investment and the $425k loan (or as potential cash flow) was proper. |
| 2) Child support calculation under R.C. 3119.04(B) (combined income > $150k) | Melissa: Court ordered support lower than the statutory $150k schedule minimum and improperly halved Luke’s obligation. | Luke: Court should set support case‑by‑case given combined income above $150k and account for shared parenting and proportional income contributions. | Court: Affirmed — magistrate computed a $29,765.82 combined obligation, allocated by income share and adjusted for equal parenting time; not an improper deviation. |
| 3) Date of marriage termination for property valuation | Melissa: Trial court erred using Aug 5, 2015 (de facto date) rather than final hearing date; violates stipulated division and due process. | Luke: De facto date appropriate given separation facts; no motion required and parties submitted the date issue to the court. | Court: Affirmed — parties had submitted termination date to court; Dill factors supported de facto date and court did not abuse discretion. |
| 4) Denial of spousal support | Melissa: She needs spousal support after 18‑year marriage. | Luke: Melissa has earning capacity, transferred large funds to parents, and received other resources; factors do not support award. | Court: Affirmed denial — trial court considered R.C. 3105.18 factors and reasonably exercised discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 616 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio 1993) (determination whether a parent is voluntarily underemployed is a factual question for the trial court reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 432 N.E.2d 183 (Ohio 1982) (trial court may use alternative valuation dates to do equity in property division)
- Day v. Day, 40 Ohio App.3d 155, 532 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (de facto termination date should be clear and bilateral, not unilateral)
- Dill v. Dill, 179 Ohio App.3d 14, 900 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (lists nonexclusive factors a court should consider when selecting a de facto termination date)
- Howell v. Howell, 167 Ohio App.3d 431, 855 N.E.2d 533 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (discusses treatment of loans/nonincome‑producing assets as potential cash flow for imputation)