2016 Ohio 3089
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Wanda and Robert Shannon divorced in 2011; final decree required Robert to pay Wanda $600/month spousal support for 96 months; court retained jurisdiction to modify amount.
- Robert was laid off on November 5, 2014; received $27,737 in severance and $2,870 in unemployment; later began new employment on February 23, 2015 at $31,500/year.
- Robert moved to modify spousal support; the magistrate reduced the obligation to $200/month effective June 1, 2015; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- At the time of the hearing Wanda earned about $27,694/year with monthly expenses exceeding her income; Robert’s monthly expenses were modest and he remained current on payments during proceedings.
- The trial court treated Robert’s severance and unemployment as roughly six months’ pay and timed the reduction to begin after those funds were exhausted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly considered severance/unemployment when modifying spousal support | Shannon: court failed to treat severance/unemployment as income for 2015; when included, 2015 income exceeds divorce-year income, so reduction not warranted | Shannon (defendant-appellee): severance/unemployment justified deferring and reducing support effective after severance exhausted | Court: Abuse of discretion to reduce 2015 support that much; severance/unemployment equaled ~8 months’ pay, and 2015 income fell <10%; nearly 39% reduction for 2015 unjustified |
Key Cases Cited
- Tremaine v. Tremaine, 111 Ohio App.3d 703 (1996) (change must be substantial and not contemplated at prior order)
- Reveal v. Reveal, 154 Ohio App.3d 758 (2003) (party seeking reduction bears burden to show reduction warranted)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (appellate review for abuse of discretion)