Williams v. Williams
2016 Ohio 7595
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2016Background
- Raymond and Susan Williams were married ~22 years; divorce decree entered May 21, 2013 after lengthy proceedings.
- At trial record: Raymond (defendant) had a business background and $186,000 annual salary (historically higher); Susan (plaintiff) had limited recent earnings (~$21,320 from two part‑time jobs) after long absence from workforce.
- Marriage lifestyle was high; parties held substantial assets and debts; wife had significant student‑loan and credit‑card debt.
- This Court previously remanded for a spousal‑support determination; trial court on remand (Mar. 29, 2016) ordered $6,000/month spousal support retroactive to June 2013 for up to 12 years (or earlier death, remarriage, cohabitation), with continuing jurisdiction for modification.
- Defendant appealed asserting the award (amount, duration, retroactivity) was an abuse of discretion and arguing the one‑time $140,000 support payment ordered in Dec. 2011 should be set off.
- Trial court and this Court applied the law‑of‑the‑case from prior appellate rulings regarding the existence of statutory spousal‑support factors; court denied setoff of the $140,000 (it had been characterized previously as support).
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Raymond's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $6,000/month (retroactive to June 2013) for up to 12 years is an appropriate spousal‑support award | Support award appropriate given wife’s limited earnings, role in marriage, and marital standard of living | Award is excessive in amount/duration and constituted an abuse of discretion | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; award reasonable on record and subject to modification on changed circumstances |
| Whether the Dec. 19, 2011 one‑time $140,000 support payment should be set off against the new spousal award | N/A (plaintiff contended it was already treated as support and no setoff was required) | Argued the $140,000 should reduce the new spousal award | Law of the case: $140,000 was characterized as one‑time support in earlier findings and no setoff was required; issue moot under law of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (2003) (trial court has broad discretion in spousal‑support determinations)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 23 Ohio St.3d 115 (1986) (standards for spousal‑support determinations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (appellate review: abuse of discretion standard)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine applies on remand)