Case Information
*1
[Cite as
Schuh v. Schuh
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
RUDIGER SCHUH, :
CASE NO. CA2014-01-007 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N : 10/27/2014 - vs -
:
PATRICIA SCHUH, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. DR2012-12-1371
The Lampe Law Office, LLC, M. Lynn Lampe, 1248 Nilles Road, Suite 7, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for plaintiff-appellee
John M. Holcomb, 6 South Second Street, Suite 311, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant- appellant
M. POWELL, J.
Defendant-appellant, Patricia Schuh (Wife), appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, awarding her $153 a month in spousal support. After 17 years of marriage, Patricia and Rudiger Schuh (Husband) were
divorced by decree on December 19, 2013. The parties have a son born in 1999. At the time of the divorce, Husband was 43 years old and employed as a quality engineer with the Ford Motor Company, earning an annual income of $93,850.80. Husband also receives an annual bonus which ranges from $2,500 to $6,000. Husband has a high school diploma, completed an apprenticeship as an electrician, but does not have an engineering degree or a college education. Wife was 50 years old, is a licensed cosmetologist, and has been a hairdresser
since she was 20 years old. She is self-employed as a hairdresser and a hair salon owner/operator. The parties bought the salon in 2005. The parties' 2011 joint income tax return shows that Wife's annual net income from her business is $28,854. Wife does not deposit her tips into her personal or business bank account, but upon the advice of her accountant, declares 8 to 12 percent of her receipts as tips on her income tax return. Wife testified the $28,854 net income included the percentage of tips she claims as income. She also testified she receives between $20 and $55 a day in tips. Wife does not keep track of how much she earns in tips a year. Marital property and marital debts were divided between the parties. Each
party received 50 percent of the other party's retirement accounts. Because Wife received a greater share of the marital property and none of the marital debts, equalization of the property division was accomplished by allocating to Husband the sum of $13,658.01 from Wife's half share of the net sale proceeds of the marital residence. With regard to their son, the parties entered into a shared parenting plan, Husband was ordered to pay $840 a month in child support, and the parties were ordered to equally divide any uncovered medical expenses for the child. By decision filed on October 21, 2013, the trial court awarded Wife spousal
support as follows:
The Court considers most strongly the length of the marriage, the
disparity between [Husband's] income and [Wife's] income, the fact that [Wife] will have to obtain her own medical insurance or close her business to find work with benefits, and the prior standard of living of the parties.
The Court considers the exchange of child support in determining the amount of spousal support, and considers the parties' disparate incomes, even after the exchange of spousal support. The Court further considers the uncertainty of the availability and expense of health insurance for [Wife].
The Court finds that an exchange of spousal support is appropriate.
The trial court also found that (1) the parties were currently earning to their ability; (2) Husband will accumulate significantly more retirement benefits than Wife; and (3) since the parties' separation, Wife's standard of living is significantly lower than that of Husband. The trial court stated it considered the tax consequences of the spousal support award. By divorce decree, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $153 a month in spousal support for 12 years. The trial court retained jurisdiction over both the amount and duration of spousal support. Wife appeals, raising one assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING AN INADEQUATE AND
INEQUITABLE AMOUNT OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT FROM APPELLEE TO APPELLANT. Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her $153 a month in spousal support. Specifically, Wife first argues the trial court failed to consider the tax consequences of the spousal support award in violation of R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(l). Wife asserts that the spousal support award is "tax-inefficient" because the trial court's decision favors payment of child support over spousal support, and thus, fails to take advantage of the differential tax rates of the parties. Wife also argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her such a minimal amount of spousal support given the parties' lengthy marriage, the great disparity in earnings, Husband's significantly greater retirement benefits through employment, and the fact Wife will have to purchase her own health insurance. A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether an award of spousal
support is proper based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Ornelas v. Ornelas ,
12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-08-094,
spousal support to either party in a divorce proceeding. R.C. 3105.18(B). In determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment and whether the spousal support is "appropriate and reasonable," the trial court must consider the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). As applicable here, these factors include the parties' respective incomes, earning abilities, ages, retirement benefits, educations, assets and liabilities, their standard of living during the marriage, the duration of their marriage, and the tax consequences of a spousal support award. R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a)-(e), (g)-(i), (l). A trial court is also free to consider any other factor it deems relevant and equitable. R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(n); Ornelas at ¶ 41. When awarding spousal support, a trial court must indicate the basis for its
award in sufficient detail to enable a reviewing court to determine that the award is fair,
equitable, and in accordance with the law. Peters v. Peters , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2009-
04-037,
spousal support award in violation of R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(l), and asserts that the spousal support award is "tax-inefficient."
R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(l) requires a trial court to consider "[t]he tax consequences,
for each party, of an award of spousal support." We find that the trial court considered and
addressed the tax consequences of its spousal support award as required by R.C.
3105.18(C)(1)(l). In its decision, the trial court stated it "completed a FinPlan analysis, and *
* * considered the tax consequences of an order of spousal support," and further stated that
"Spousal support will be taxable as income to [Wife] and deductible to [Husband] for tax
purposes."
[1]
Gentile ,
1. "A FinPlan analysis is a computer generated calculation performed by the trial court that determines the
amount of money each spouse contributes to the household." Lumpkin v. Lumpkin , 9th Dist. Summit No. 21305,
In its decision, the trial court noted it "consider[ed] the exchange of child support in determining the amount of spousal support." Wife states that the trial court first determined the amount of the spousal support award and then used that amount to calculate Husband's child support obligation. Wife asserts "this approach ignores the tax consequences of the [spousal support] award," and notes that "the amount of a child support award is not a statutory factor in spousal support calculation. Rather, it is an award of spousal support that is a factor in child support guideline." It is difficult to understand the crux of Wife's argument. Wife seemingly argues
that a trial court must calculate spousal support before it can calculate child support.
However, the statutes governing spousal support and child support do not explicitly address
the order in which the support awards must be established. R.C. 3105.18(B) provides that a
trial court may award spousal support "after the court determines the division or
disbursement of property." R.C. 3105.18(B) does not mention child support. However, one
of the factors a trial court must consider in awarding spousal support is "the relative assets
and liabilities of the parties, including * * * any court-ordered payments by the parties." R.C.
3105.18(C)(1)(i). "Child support, as a 'court-ordered payment,' is a relevant factor in
determining spousal support." Glassner v. Glassner ,
Wife also seems to argue that the amount of the spousal support award should
have been greater as it would have benefited both parties. Instead, she asserts,"[b]y
favoring payment of child support over spousal support, the [trial] court has squandered the
possibility that, by taking advantage of the differential tax rates of the parties, Wife could
have realized more net after-tax income without reducing Husband's net after tax income."
The trial court found that the marginal tax rate for Husband and Wife was 29.7
percent and 18.5 percent respectively. Based upon these tax rates, every additional $1,000
in child support would save Husband $297 in taxes while costing Wife $185 in taxes, for a net
savings of $112 (not including state taxes or consideration of any other tax deductions,
credits, etc. to which the parties may be entitled). Therefore, absent a significant increase in
the spousal support award, any net tax savings by the parties would be minimal.
In addition, a child support determination "calculated pursuant to the basic child
support schedule and applicable worksheet through the line establishing the actual annual
obligation, is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support due." Mogg v.
McCloskey , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 24,
of the spousal support award as required under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(l).
Wife also argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding such a minimal amount of spousal support given the parties' lengthy marriage, the great disparity in earnings, Husband's significantly greater retirement benefits through employment, and the fact Wife will have to purchase her own health insurance. Upon a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in awarding Wife $153 a month in spousal support. The trial court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the factors under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). Specifically, the trial court strongly considered the length of the parties' marriage, the disparity between the parties' incomes, the fact Wife will have to obtain her own medical insurance, and the prior standard of living of the parties. See R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (g), and (n). We find that the record supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). We note Wife neither testified nor specified how much spousal support she was
requesting or needed. In addition, other than the fact she currently rents a house for $750 a month, there was no evidence regarding her current and reasonably anticipated living expenses. Although she knew she would be required to buy her own health insurance after the divorce, Wife did not know how much it would cost her as she had not researched the issue. The record also shows Wife is self-employed as a hairdresser and a hair salon owner/operator. While she does not currently have renters, she has six vacant chairs in her salon she could rent to other hairdressers. We note there is no evidence indicating that Wife could not meet her monthly expenses based solely upon her income, let alone with the addition of the spousal support award. We further note that the trial court retained jurisdiction over both the amount and duration of spousal support. In light of the foregoing, we find that while the amount of the spousal support
award may be minimal, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Wife $153 a
month in spousal support for 12 years. See Vertrees v. Vertrees , 2d Dist. Clark No. 06-CA-
48,
RINGLAND, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.