2016 Ohio 95
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Denise (Wife) and Albert (Husband) Uphouse divorced after a 19‑year marriage; Wife previously appealed and the case was remanded for disposition of the marital home.
- On remand the trial court issued an order disposing of the home and awarded spousal support to Wife for 62 months and set the monthly amount based in part on Husband’s claimed expenses.
- Wife suffers from severe, chronic lupus with significant functional limitations; medical testimony indicated she would have great difficulty maintaining any employment.
- Wife had stopped working early in the marriage; she completed three years of college but did not finish due to illness.
- Husband’s affidavit listed monthly expenses of $2,204.49, but at trial many listed expenses were reduced, ending shortly, or were attributable in part to his girlfriend and her children.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s spousal‑support determinations and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 62‑month duration of spousal support was appropriate | 62 months is unreasonable given the marriage’s long duration and Wife’s severe, ongoing disability preventing self‑support | Duration reasonable because Wife could potentially finish education and become self‑supporting within the term | Reversed: 62 months unreasonable given 19‑year marriage and medical evidence that Wife cannot maintain employment |
| Whether the trial court’s findings about Husband’s monthly expenses were supported by evidence | Trial court relied on inflated/outdated expense figures; many expenses reduced or not solely his | Trial relied on Husband’s affidavit listing $2,204.49 monthly expenses | Reversed: court unreasonably based support amount on overstated/obsolete expenses |
| Whether the amount of spousal support was reasonable and appropriate | Amount is improper because it was calculated from faulty expense findings and ignored Wife’s inability to be self‑supporting | Amount justified by court’s expense findings and other factors | Reversed: support amount must be recalculated consistent with correct expense findings and statutory factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (1990) (factors and guidance for duration of sustenance alimony)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 132 Ohio App.3d 616 (9th Dist. 1999) (discussing when a marriage is of long duration and its impact on support)