Valentine v. Valentine
2012 Ohio 4202
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Valentines divorced after 24 years; dispute over spousal support amount and terms.
- Mr. Valentine earned up to $57,000 before conviction but was imprisoned for three OVI offenses, affecting employment prospects.
- Driving restrictions from the DUI sentence (four years) would likely limit him to near-home work, e.g., a ten-dollar-per-hour cook role.
- Trial court determined spousal support based on a realistic view of post-release earning; used Mr. Valentine’s post-conviction prospects, not pre-conviction income, in setting the award.
- Court awarded $130 per month for 98 months, and retained jurisdiction to modify if Mr. Valentine found better employment; award was not in lump sum.
- Ms. Valentine appealed arguing (a) income imputation should have occurred and (b) lump-sum payment should have been ordered; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mr. Valentine was properly not deemed voluntarily underemployed for spousal support | Valentine argues income should have been imputed. | Valentine contends no imputation required; focus on relative earning ability. | Court properly weighed factors; no requirement to impute specific income. |
| Whether spousal support should be paid as a lump sum | Valentine sought lump-sum payment of the award. | Valentine argues installments are appropriate; no misconduct warranting lump sum. | Court correctly ordered monthly installments, exercise of discretion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmie v. Zimmie, 11 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 1984) (permits consideration of factors, including misconduct, in spousal support)
- Collins v. Collins, 2011-Ohio-2087 (9th Dist. 2011) (distinguishes child support imputation from spousal support analysis)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 2008-Ohio-4557 (9th Dist. 2008) (no underemployment provision in R.C. 3105.18; focuses on earning ability)