Taylor v. Taylor
2017 Ohio 2594
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Frederick Taylor filed for divorce in March 2012; parties had been separated since November 2010 and were married ~32+ years. Temporary spousal support was $2,000/month.
- In August 2014 appellant’s pension was divided and appellee began receiving $1,197.02/month as her marital share; appellant then stopped paying the temporary $2,000 support.
- Appellee moved to determine spousal support and collect delinquencies; an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate was held and the trial court later adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Magistrate/trial court ordered appellant to pay $650/month retroactive to August 1, 2014 (plus 2% poundage), allowed appellee to keep her entire pension, and granted appellant’s motion to sell the marital residence with proceeds distributed per the divorce decree.
- Appellant objected generically to the magistrate’s decision (one objection) but did not raise several specific arguments below; he appeals claiming abuse of discretion and other errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal support award ($650/month) was an abuse of discretion because court failed to consider Taylor’s diabetes and his housing-related expenses | Court ignored Taylor’s health and mortgage/maintenance costs, so award is excessive | Trial court considered expense affidavits and parties’ incomes/ages; trial court has broad discretion under R.C. 3105.18 | No abuse of discretion; court reasonably considered factors and support was appropriate |
| Whether appellee’s pension was improperly left intact (100%) contrary to prior order to divide pensions equally | Pension division order was inconsistent with prior interlocutory decree and reduced Taylor’s income/ability to pay | Appellee testified she needed the full pension; appellant failed to object to magistrate on this ground so it is waived; decision was equitable given income disparity | Waived for appeal under Civ.R. 53 for failure to object; no plain error found; appellee allowed to keep her pension |
| Whether trial court erred by ordering sale of marital property without resolving asserted liens/bankruptcy/foreclosure | Sale improperly ordered without addressing appellee’s liens and alleged bankruptcy/foreclosure; he should get credit for arrearages | Appellant didn’t present details or objections below; sale motion was his own and decree provides distribution terms; no evidence of bankruptcy/foreclosure in record | No plain error; sale order affirmed and proceeds governed by divorce decree |
| Whether making support retroactive to Aug. 1, 2014 (creating arrearage) was an abuse of discretion | Retroactivity created a substantial unjust arrearage; he stopped paying after pension division and couldn’t afford both | Appellant voluntarily stopped payments when pension was divided; court’s retroactivity aligns with when payments ceased and with earlier temporary-order language | Not an abuse of discretion; retroactive start to Aug. 1, 2014 was reasonable and arose from appellant’s cessation of payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1990) (standards for appellate review of spousal-support determinations)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128 (Ohio 1989) (trial court’s broad discretion in spousal-support awards)
- Carman v. Carman, 109 Ohio App.3d 698 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (no requirement for trial court to make specific findings on R.C. 3105.18 absent request)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (Ohio 1981) (presumption that trial court considered relevant statutory factors when findings not requested)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases limited to exceptional circumstances)
- Ivancic v. Enos, 978 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) (discussion of abuse of discretion standard and appellate review)