Kedanis v. KedanisKedanis v. Kedanis
M. Lynn Lampe, 1248 Nilles Road, Suite 7, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} A domestic relations court ordered a husband to pay spousal support to his wife for ten years. Husband argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it only considered the disparity in incomes and the length of the marriage. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its spousal support determination аs it properly considered all of the factors of
{¶ 2} The Butler County Domestic Relations Court entered a decree of divorce in December 2011, terminating the marriage between Leonard J. Kedanis and Denise L. Kedanis. Included in the provisions of the decree was an order that husband pay $384.62 per biweekly pay period in spousal support to wife for ten years.
{¶ 3} On appeal of that decision, husband‘s single assignment of error avers:
{¶ 4} TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ORDERED HUSBAND TO PAY SPOUSAL SUPPORT ON A PARITY ANALYSIS, WHILE ONLY CONSIDERING THE LENGTH OF MARRIAGE AND DISPARITY OF INCOMES.
{¶ 5} Husband argues the trial court abused its discretion by using a “parity analysis” аfter wife testified at one point in the proceedings she needed less than what the trial court subsequently awarded her.
{¶ 6} In the entry, the trial court found that the parties werе married on May 25, 1991. Husband earns $71,000 per year and wife earns $43,701 per year plus an additional $5,755 per year in rental income. The entry stated that spousal support “is just and аppropriate because of the length of the marriage and the disparity of incomes between the parties.” The court ruled that spousal support was tаxable income to wife and a tax deduction for husband. The court retained jurisdiction over the amount of support. The court‘s entry did not cite to
{¶ 7} Husband acknowledgеs the trial court made findings from
{¶ 9}
[i]n determining whether spousal support is appropriate and reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment, and duration of spousal support, which is payable either in gross or in installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors:
(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not limited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code;
(b) The relative earning abilities of the parties;
(c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties;
(d) The retirement benefits of the parties;
(e) The duration of the marriage;
(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home;
(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage;
(h) The relative extent of education of the parties;
(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties;
(j) The contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning ability of the other party, including, but not limited to, any pаrty‘s contribution to the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party;
(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will be qualified to obtain appropriate employment, providеd the education, training, or job experience, and employment is, in fact, sought;
(l) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal supрort; (m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted from that party‘s marital responsibilities;
(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable.
{¶ 10} A trial court has broad discretion to determine the proper amount and duration of spousal support based on the facts and сircumstances of each case, and a trial court‘s award of spousal support will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Woodrome, 12th Dist. No. CA2000-05-074, 2001 WL 290067; Gregory v. Kottman-Gregory, 12th Dist. Nos. CA2004-11-039, CA2004-11-041, 2005-Ohio-6558.
{¶ 11} If the court does not specifically address each
{¶ 12} In the case at bar, there is evidence the trial court reviеwed the factors in
{¶ 13} The trial court specifically mentioned the two factors cited by husband, but the record confirms the trial court understood its obligation to and did apply all of the pertinent
{¶ 15} “[A]lthough a trial court is not required to equalize incomes, it is not prohibited from doing so where such a result is reasonable and equitаble.” Arthur v. Arthur, 3rd Dist. No. 17-11-28, 2012-Ohio-1893, ¶ 33. While
{¶ 16} Husband also argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering an amount of spousal support that was more than wife testified she would need. The record indicates the wife testified earlier in the hearing that she was meeting her “debt load every month” with her earnings, but she would need $600 in monthly spousal support for four years to afford living in the mаrital home. Husband testified that he was currently living in the marital home and paying two of the three mortgages on the home.
{¶ 17} After both parties testified they did not want to live in the marital home, the trial court ordered the home sold, with husband and wife splitting the expenses of paying all three mortgages on the home and the utility costs for the home until it was sold.
{¶ 18} We acknowledge this court previously placed strong emphasis on establishing the needs of the party receiving the support as referenced in our decision in Carnahan v. Carnahan, 118 Ohio App.3d 393 (12th Dist.1997). In Carnahan, which addressed the
{¶ 19} We find that a trial court must consider each of the factors listed in
{¶ 20} Accordingly, a review of the record indicates the trial court heard the testimony of the parties and considered the pertinent factors of
{¶ 21} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.