Porter v. Porter ( 2024 )

[Cite as Porter v. Porter, 2024-Ohio-1413.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
MIA PORTER, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-07-086
: OPINION
- vs - 4/15/2024
:
DORSEY PORTER, :
Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. DR21 06 0457
Muhammad Hamidullah, for appellee.
Victor Dwayne Sims, for appellant.
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Dorsey Porter ("Husband"), appeals from the final divorce decree
issued by the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division,
terminating his marriage to Mia Porter ("Wife"). For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On February 14, 2005, Husband and Wife were married in Butler County,
Ohio. There were no children born issue of the marriage. Husband is a skilled specialized
Butler CA2023-07-086
mechanic who, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, had been employed by Lamborghini car
dealerships throughout the country. This includes positions in Florida, Missouri, New
York, and Virginia. Wife moved with Husband to each of those four states and secured
employment for herself each time earning an annual salary of just over $39,000. 1
Husband has since gained employment with American Airlines in California where in both
2020 and 2021 Husband received an annual salary of approximately $82,000.
{¶ 3} On June 8, 2021, after more than 16 years of marriage, Wife filed for divorce
from Husband. Wife did this based on Husband's alleged gross neglect of duty and her
and Husband's purported incompatibility. Husband filed an answer and counterclaim for
divorce from Wife on September 23, 2021.
{¶ 4} On December 12, 2022, the domestic relations court held a final divorce
hearing. There is no dispute that on the date of the final divorce hearing Husband was
51 years old and living in the San Francisco, California area, whereas Wife was 44 years
old and living in Middletown, Ohio.2 The domestic relations court heard testimony from
both Husband and Wife during the final divorce hearing. Husband and Wife also
introduced several exhibits for the domestic relations court's consideration. This included
both Husband's and Wife's affidavits of their anticipated monthly expenses, wherein
Husband claimed his anticipated expenses living in California were $3,000 a month, while
Wife claimed her anticipated monthly living expenses in Ohio were $2,600 per month.
{¶ 5} On January 31, 2023, the domestic relations court issued a decision
granting Husband and Wife a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility. In so doing, the
1. The record indicates that Wife is also employed as a singer and performer. However, neither Husband
nor Wife provided any evidence regarding the amount of income, if any, that Wife earned from singing
and/or performing.
2. The record indicates that Husband lives in Mountain View, California, a city located in the area between
San Francisco and San Jose.
-2-
Butler CA2023-07-086
domestic relations court determined that the proper termination date of the marriage was
the date that the final divorce hearing took place, December 12, 2022. This resulted in
the domestic relations court awarding Wife one-half the marital portion of Husband's
401(K) earned during the marriage while Husband was employed with American Airlines.3
The domestic relations court also ordered Husband to pay Wife spousal support in the
amount of $900 per month for a period of five years.4 The domestic relations court
determined that this spousal support award was appropriate and reasonable given "the
age of the parties, the 17 year marriage; the disparity of income; the property division
herein; the tax consequences for Husband and Wife; the disparity in earning potential of
the parties; [and] the parties' good standard of living during the marriage."
Husband's Appeal and Two Assignments of Error
{¶ 6} On June 29, 2023, the domestic relations court issued judgment entry and
final decree of divorce, thereby completing Husband's and Wife's separation. The
following month, on July 27, 2023, Husband filed a notice of appeal from the domestic
relations court's final divorce decree. Oral argument was thereafter had before this court
on March 4, 2024. Husband's appeal now properly before this court for decision,
Husband has raised two assignments of error for review.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
FAILED TO SELECT A MARRIAGE TERMINATION DATE.
{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations court
erred by using the date of the final divorce hearing, December 12, 2022, as the de facto
3. This amounted to Wife receiving approximately $11,000 from Husband's 401(K) with American Airlines.
4 This would result in Husband paying Wife a total of $10,800 in spousal support annually, or $54,000 at
the end of five years, assuming Wife did not pass away, remarry, or cohabitate with another individual during
that time.
-3-
Butler CA2023-07-086
termination date of his and Wife's marriage for property division purposes. We disagree.
{¶ 10} "Generally, the proper date for the termination of a marriage, for purposes
of property division, is the date of the final divorce hearing." Dellinger v. Dellinger, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-229, 2016-Ohio-4995, ¶ 20, citing Fillis v. Fillis, 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2008-10-093, 2009-Ohio-2808, ¶ 8. This is a "statutory presumption"
that is set forth under R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)(a). Williams v. Williams, 12th Dist. Warren
No. CA2012-08-074, 2013-Ohio-3318, ¶ 24. Specifically, pursuant to R.C.
3105.171(A)(2)(a), the term "during the marriage" means "the period of time from the date
of the marriage through the date of the final hearing in an action for divorce or in an action
for legal separation."
{¶ 11} "However, pursuant to R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)(b), if the domestic relations
court finds the time period between the date of the marriage and the date of the final
divorce hearing would be 'inequitable,' the domestic relations court may select dates that
it considers equitable in determining marital property." Waligura v. Waligura, 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2022-11-076, 2023-Ohio-3747, ¶ 30. To do this, the domestic relations
court need not make an explicit "equitable" or "inequitable" finding. Vaughn v. Vaughn,
12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-08-078, 2022-Ohio-1805, ¶ 51. Rather, based on the plain
language of the statute, the domestic relations court is merely required to "select dates
that it considers equitable in determining marital property" if the court determines that
using either the date of the marriage or the date of the final divorce hearing "would be
inequitable." Id.{¶ 12} Because the domestic relations court has broad discretion to select dates it
considers equitable, and because a domestic relations court's determination of the
termination date of a marriage is largely a question of fact, this court will not disturb the
domestic relations court's decision setting the termination date of a marriage absent an
-4-
Butler CA2023-07-086
abuse of discretion. Roberts v. Roberts, 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2012-07-015 and
CA2012-07-016, 2013-Ohio-1733, ¶ 28. "The abuse of discretion standard is based upon
the principle that a trial court must have the discretion in domestic relations matters to do
what is equitable given the facts and circumstances of each case." Jefferies v. Stanzak,
135 Ohio App.3d 176, 179 (12th Dist.1999), citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144
(1989). This is why "[a]n abuse of discretion constitutes more than an error of law or
judgment; it requires a finding that the [domestic relations] court acted unreasonably,
arbitrarily or unconscionably." Oliver v. Oliver, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-01-004,
2011-Ohio-6345, ¶ 15, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 13} "The vast majority of cases in which an abuse of discretion is asserted
involve claims that the decision is unreasonable." Bonifield v. Bonifield, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2020-02-022, 2021-Ohio-95, ¶ 11. "A decision is unreasonable where it is not
supported by a sound reasoning process." Nwafo v. Ugwualor, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2023-05-055, 2024-Ohio-189, ¶ 11. "An arbitrary decision is one that lacks adequate
determining principle and is not governed by any fixed rules or standard." Campbell v. 1
Spring, LLC, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-368, 2020-Ohio-3190, ¶ 9. "[A]n
unconscionable decision is one that affronts the sense of justice, decency, or
reasonableness." Schaible v. Schaible, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-06-029, 2022-
Ohio-4717, ¶ 24.
{¶ 14} As noted above, Husband argues the domestic relations court erred by
using the date of the final divorce hearing, December 12, 2022, as the de facto termination
date of his and Wife's marriage for property division purposes. This is because, according
to Husband, he and Wife "began living separate and apart" over two years earlier, in
February of 2019, when he moved from Virginia to California and began working for
American Airlines, and "[t]here is no evidence that the parties ever lived together again
-5-
Butler CA2023-07-086
or reconciled in any way," either "financially" or "physically."5 However, as a simple review
of the record reveals, Husband never argued or moved the domestic relations court to
use a date other than the date on which the final divorce hearing took place as the de
facto termination date of his and Wife's marriage.
{¶ 15} The record also indicates that Husband's move from Virginia to California
was never intended to be permanent. The record instead indicates that Husband's move
to California was supposed to be temporary relocation for work that was to last only a few
months before both he and Wife moved to Ohio so that Wife could be closer to her ailing
father. Under these circumstances, particularly when considering Husband never offered
the domestic relations court any other alternative date, we find no error in the domestic
relations court using the date of the final divorce hearing, December 12, 2022, as the de
facto termination date of the marriage for property division purposes. Accordingly, finding
no error in the domestic relations court's decision, Husband's first assignment of error
lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 16} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 17} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING
SPOUSAL SUPPORT.
{¶ 18} In his second assignment of error, Husband argues the domestic relations
court erred by ordering him to pay Wife monthly spousal support in the amount of $900
for a period of five years. We disagree.
{¶ 19} In divorce proceedings, after the domestic relations court determines the
division or disbursement of property, the domestic relations court "may award 'reasonable
spousal support' to either party." Carson v. Manubay, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-11-
5. We note that, in his answer to Wife's complaint for divorce, Husband claimed that he moved to California
in 2016, rather than in 2019, as he alleges in his appellate brief.
-6-
Butler CA2023-07-086
107, 2023-Ohio-2015, ¶ 36, quoting R.C. 3105.18(B). "In determining whether spousal
support is appropriate and reasonable, the [domestic relations] court has a statutory duty
to base its spousal support order on a careful and full balancing of the factors in R.C.
3105.18(C)(1)." Lykins v. Lykins, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2017-06-028 and CA2017-
06-032, 2018-Ohio-2144, ¶ 40. "R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) contains 14 factors that the
[domestic relations] court must consider in determining if spousal support is appropriate."
Casper v. Casper, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2012-12-128 and CA2012-12-129, 2013-
Ohio-4329, ¶ 40.
{¶ 20} These 14 factors include, but are not limited to, the income of the parties,
the relative earning abilities of the parties, the retirement benefits of the parties, the ages
and physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties, the duration of marriage,
the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage, the relative extent of
education of parties, and the relative assets and liabilities of the parties. R.C.
3105.18(C)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). "A reviewing court will presume each
factor was considered, absent evidence to the contrary." Bobie v. Bobie, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2022-12-119, 2023-Ohio-3293, ¶ 63. This court "will not disturb a spousal support
award on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." Smith v. Smith, 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2016-08-059, 2017-Ohio-7463, ¶ 24. As noted above, an abuse of discretion "requires
a finding that the [domestic relations] court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or
unconscionably." Oliver, 2011-Ohio-6345 at ¶ 15, citing Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219.
{¶ 21} Rather than challenging the amount or duration of the spousal support
award the domestic relations court afforded to Wife, Husband argues it was error for the
domestic relations court to order him to pay any spousal support to Wife at all. To support
this claim, Husband argues that ordering him to pay Wife spousal support is not
appropriate in this case when considering the cost of living for a single person in the San
-7-
Butler CA2023-07-086
Francisco area where he lives is much greater than the cost of living for a single person
in Middletown where Wife lives. Therefore, according to Husband, ordering him to pay
Wife spousal support under these circumstances "provides ample funds for wife to work
and live and strips husband of that ability" and is akin to stealing away his "livelihood"
while at the same time creating "a bonus for wife based on income created by husband
after the parties stopped living together or sharing financial obligations," and is
tantamount to a "taking" of his hard-earned money and leaving him "in poverty while
enhancing Wife's lifestyle resulting in an unjust and inequitable outcome."
{¶ 22} However, while the cost of living between the San Francisco area and
Middletown may very well be different, maybe even drastically so, given the record in this
case, the domestic relations court found Wife's anticipated monthly expenses in Ohio
were $2,600, whereas Husband's anticipated living expenses in California were just $400
more at $3,000. The domestic relations court made this finding based upon Husband's
and Wife's own affidavits wherein they each set forth the monthly expenses they expected
to pay once their divorce was finalized. Under these circumstances, and when
considering Husband's and Wife's ages, the duration of Husband and Wife's marriage,
and the disparity in Husband's and Wife's respective incomes, the domestic relations
court did not err by ordering Husband to pay Wife monthly spousal support in the amount
of $900 for a period of five years.6 Accordingly, Husband's second assignment of error
also lacks merit and is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 23} For the reasons outlined above, and finding no merit to either of Husband's
6. We note that, if Husband would like to pay less in living expenses, there is nothing in the record to
indicate Husband could not make that a reality by taking his skills as a specialized mechanic to some other
part of the country, something the record indicates Husband did on at least four separate occasions during
his marriage to Wife.
-8-
Butler CA2023-07-086
two assignments of error raised herein, Husband's appeal from the domestic relations
court's final divorce decree is denied.
{¶ 24} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
-9-