Taylor v. Heary
2019 Ohio 3094
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Donna Taylor and Andrew Heary divorced in 1999; the divorce decree required Heary to pay and maintain Taylor as a beneficiary of a John Hancock long-term care insurance policy until her death or remarriage.
- Taylor, disabled by progressive multiple sclerosis, later required assisted living care; John Hancock informed her representative that premiums had not been paid since January 2003 and the policy lapsed to a reduced "paid-up" benefit level.
- The premium was about $28.10/month; full coverage would have provided a $315,000 lifetime benefit versus $98,550 under the paid-up level, a difference of $216,450.
- Taylor moved to show cause in October 2016 asserting Heary violated the divorce decree by stopping premium payments; Heary filed a motion to modify spousal support and opposed the show-cause, claiming disability, debts, and that a 2004 magistrate decision relieved him of the premium obligation.
- A magistrate found Heary in contempt, awarded Taylor $216,450 (the loss in maximum lifetime benefits), but reduced Heary’s monthly spousal support from $945.50 to $724 based on Taylor’s receipt of Social Security; both parties’ objections were overruled and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heary was in contempt for failing to pay long-term care premiums | Taylor: Heary violated the divorce decree by stopping premium payments and caused loss of benefits | Heary: A 2004 magistrate modification terminated his obligation to pay premiums | Court: Decree’s premium obligation was a standalone provision not modified in 2004; Heary admitted stopping payments in 2003 → contempt affirmed |
| Proper measure of remedy for premium breach | Taylor: Damages equal difference between full policy lifetime benefit and paid-up benefit ($216,450) | Heary: Disagreed that such award was appropriate given alleged modification | Court: John Hancock records supported loss figure; competent evidence supports $216,450 judgment |
| Whether Heary was entitled to take Taylor’s deposition | Taylor: Protective order required due to her infirmities; deposition should occur at her residence | Heary: Deposition necessary to show Taylor’s assets; he could not travel and scheduled remote questioning | Court: Protective order proper; Heary refused to accommodate deposition at Taylor’s residence; no abuse of discretion in precluding depositions |
| Whether spousal support should be modified or terminated | Taylor: Spousal support should remain given her disabled status and lost insurance benefit | Heary: His increased medical expenses and reduced finances (needing full SSDI) and Taylor’s lump-sum receipt justify termination | Court: Heary’s disability and medical expenses were already considered in prior modification; Heary produced insufficient evidence of new expenses; Taylor’s receipt of Social Security is a change warranting reduction to $724 but not termination |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69 (contempt proceedings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (definition of abuse of discretion in family-law matters)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (standard for trial court jurisdiction and modification of spousal support)