Courtney v. Courtney , 2014 Ohio 4281 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Courtney v. Courtney, 2014-Ohio-4281.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
MELISSA A. COURTNEY, :
CASE NOS. CA2013-09-087
Plaintiff-Appellee/ : CA2013-10-096
Cross-Appellant,
: OPINION
9/29/2014
- vs - :
:
DARREN L. COURTNEY,
:
Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee. :
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. 12DR35243
Rittgers & Rittgers, Nicholas D. Graman, 12 East Warren Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for
plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant
Jim L. Hardin, 200 East Silver Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for defendant-appellant/cross-
appellee
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant/cross-appellee, Darren L. Courtney (Father), appeals from
a divorce decree issued by the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, following his divorce from plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant, Melissa A. Courtney
(Mother). Mother has filed a cross-appeal from the same divorce decree. For the reasons
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
outlined below, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
{¶ 2} Mother and Father were married on September 9, 1994. The couple had three
children born issue of the marriage, the youngest being a special needs child due to his
diagnosis of Fragile X Syndrome. On January 12, 2012, after discovering information she
believed proved Father was having an affair, Mother filed a complaint for divorce. Shortly
thereafter, on February 17, 2012, Father was terminated from his position as general in-
house counsel with Fujitec America, Inc., based on allegations he had sexually harassed a
co-worker. It is undisputed that Father earned a salary of $161,967 from his employment
with Fujitec America for the year 2011.
{¶ 3} Following his termination from the company, on March 2, 2012, Fujitec America
notified the Mason Police Department that it had discovered documents in Father's office and
on his office computer that lead them to believe Father had stolen thousands of dollars from
the company. On June 25, 2012, after the police investigation had concluded, a Warren
County grand jury returned an indictment against Father charging him with two counts of
aggravated theft, one count of telecommunications fraud, and one count of tampering with
records, all third-degree felonies. Father subsequently pled guilty to one count of aggravated
theft on March 28, 2013 and was then sentenced on May 15, 2013. See State v. Courtney,
Warren C.P. No. 12CR28271 (May 15, 2013) (Judgment Entry of Sentence). As a result of
his guilty plea, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended Father from the practice of law for an
interim period beginning on June 21, 2013 pending a disciplinary investigation and
proceeding. See In re Courtney, 136 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2013-Ohio-2551.
{¶ 4} On March 28, 2013, the same day Father entered his guilty plea, a final divorce
hearing was held, wherein a magistrate heard testimony from both Mother and Father.
During the final divorce hearing, Mother testified that she worked for Mason Public Schools
as a special education teacher making $51,670 a year, as well as tutoring students five hours
-2-
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
a week making $19.50 an hour. Mother also testified that she worked at a nursing home
during the summer making $10 an hour.
{¶ 5} On the other hand, Father testified "I'd rather be a contractor and carpenter
than an attorney." To that end, Father testified he had done "some" work as a carpenter and
a contractor billing at a rate of $20 an hour. Father also testified that he was working at
Office Depot making $10.50 an hour and that he received $539 per week in unemployment.
According to Father's testimony, he hoped to start a contracting business over the next
several years because he "can be a decent businessman and hopefully I can make a decent
living."
{¶ 6} On April 5, 2013, the magistrate issued its decision recommending the parties
be divorced. As part of that decision, the magistrate found Father was voluntarily
underemployed and imputed income to him for child and spousal support purposes in the
amount of $161,967, the same amount Father made while working as general in-house
counsel for Fujitec America in 2011. The magistrate also awarded Mother $5,787 in attorney
fees by allowing Mother to retain Father's share in an IRA valued at $11,574. Mother and
Father both filed objections to the magistrate's decision, which, as relevant here, the trial
court denied. The trial court then issued an entry and final decree and judgment of divorce
adopting the magistrate's decision on September 20, 2013.
{¶ 7} Father now appeals from the trial court's decision, raising four assignments of
error for review. Mother has also appealed from that decision, raising a single cross-
assignment of error for review.
{¶ 8} Father's Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS DETERMINATION OF
CHILD SUPPORT OF $1408.43 PER MONTH BY IMPROPERLY IMPUTING INCOME,
FAILING TO GRANT A DEVIATION, AND BY OFFSETTING PAST AND FUTURE
-3-
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
SUPPORT AMOUNTS AGAINST APPELLANT'S IRA INTEREST.
{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, Father argues the trial court erred by finding him
to be voluntarily underemployed and by imputing potential income to him in the amount of
$161,967 for purposes of computing child support.
{¶ 11} Pursuant to R.C. 3119.01(C)(11), before a trial court may impute income to a
parent for purposes of computing child support, it must first find that the parent is voluntarily
unemployed or voluntarily underemployed. Reynolds-Cornett v. Reynolds, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2013-09-175, 2014-Ohio-2893, ¶ 10. Whether a party is voluntarily unemployed or
voluntarily underemployed is "a factual determination to be made by the trial court based on
the circumstances of each particular case." Rotte v. Rotte, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2004-10-
249, 2005-Ohio-6269, ¶ 14, citing Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 112 (1993). The trial
court's determination on this issue will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion. Jestice v. Jestice, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-07-133, 2014-Ohio-3777, ¶ 9. An
abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's
attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1983). "A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process
that would support that decision." AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban
Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990).
{¶ 12} After a thorough review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding Father was voluntarily underemployed. As noted above, Father was
terminated from his position as general in-house counsel for Fujitec America after it was
alleged he sexually harassed of a co-worker. Since that time, Father pled guilty to
aggravated theft, a third-degree felony, after it was discovered he had stolen thousands of
dollars from the company. Although not yet suspended from the practice of law at the time of
the final divorce hearing, as noted above, the Ohio Supreme Court has since suspended
-4-
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
Father from the practice of law for an interim period pending a disciplinary investigation and
proceeding. Father's felony conviction and suspension from the practice of law can all be
attributed to his voluntary and admittedly illegal acts. Therefore, we find no abuse of
discretion in the trial court's decision finding Father was voluntarily underemployed.
Accordingly, Father's argument challenging the trial court's finding him voluntarily
underemployed is overruled.
{¶ 13} Our inquiry, however, does not end there for Father also argues the trial court
erred by imputing potential income to him. As this court recently stated, if the trial court finds
that a parent is voluntarily underemployed, such as the case here, "then it must consider the
nonexclusive list of criteria set forth in R.C. 3119.01(C)(11)(a) to determine the amount of
potential income to impute to the parent." Jestice, 2014-Ohio-3777 at ¶ 8, citing Corwin v.
Corwin, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-01-005, 2013-Ohio-3996, ¶ 74. This "potential
income" includes imputed income a trial court determines the parent would have earned if
fully employed based upon personal factors such as: (1) the parent's prior employment
experience; (2) the parent's education; (3) the parent's physical and mental disabilities, if any;
(4) the parent's special skills and training; (5) whether there is evidence that the parent has
the ability to earn the imputed income; (6) the age and special needs of the child for whom
child support is being calculated; (7) the parent's increased earning capacity because of
experience; (8) the parent's decreased earning capacity because of a felony conviction; and
(9) any other relevant factor. Marron v. Marron, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2013-11-109 and
CA2013-11-113, 2014-Ohio-2121, ¶ 45, citing R.C. 3119.01(C)(11)(a).
{¶ 14} The amount of income that should be imputed, if any, is also a factual
determination made by the trial court based on the circumstances of each particular case.
Moore v. Moore, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2006-09-066, 2007-Ohio-4355, ¶ 67, citing
Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d at 112. Therefore, just as the trial court's decision as to whether a
-5-
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
parent is voluntarily underemployed, the trial court's determination on the amount of income
to impute to an underemployed parent will likewise not be disturbed on appeal absent an
abuse of discretion. Jestice, 2014-Ohio-3777 at ¶ 9; see also Justice v. Justice, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2006-11-134, 2007-Ohio-5186, ¶ 7. As stated previously, an abuse of
discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219.
{¶ 15} Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we find the trial court
abused its discretion in imputing $161,967 in potential income to Father, the same amount he
made while working as general in-house counsel for Fujitec America in 2011. Again,
although highly educated and trained in the law, the Ohio Supreme Court has suspended
Father from the practice of law for an interim period pending a disciplinary investigation and
proceeding, thereby making his ability to earn the imputed income highly unlikely. Moreover,
while he hopes to start a contractor business, Father's earning capacity is greatly reduced
due to his felony conviction for aggravated theft. The record also contains evidence
indicating Father has struggled with depression and may have at one point exhibited suicidal
ideations. Therefore, while it is true the parties' youngest child does require special needs,
imputing the same amount of income to Father that he earned as a high-paying attorney is
not reasonable and amounts to an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Father's argument
challenging the trial court's decision imputing potential income to him in the amount of
$161,967 is sustained.
{¶ 16} Father has raised several other issues under his first assignment of error
regarding the trial court's decision to award child support. However, in light of our findings
above, these issues are now rendered moot. Accordingly, Father's first assignment of error
is overruled as it relates to the trial court's decision finding him voluntarily underemployed,
but sustained as it relates to the trial court's decision imputing potential income to him in the
-6-
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
amount of $161,967.
{¶ 17} Father's Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 18} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT, LENGTH,
TYPE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT.
{¶ 19} In his second assignment of error, Father challenges multiple aspects of the
trial court's award of spousal support to Mother, a decision also based on the trial court's
erroneous decision to impute $161,967 in potential income to Father. Therefore, without
offering any opinion as to the merits of Father's claims in regards to the length, type and
terms of the trial court's spousal support award, Father's second assignment of error is also
sustained.
{¶ 20} Father's Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 21} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS AND DISTRIBUTION OF
MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO [R.C.] 3105.171.
{¶ 22} In his third assignment of error, Father argues the trial court erred in its
distribution of marital property. Admittedly, this case provides a multitude of complex issues
regarding the proper distribution of marital property. However, based on our review of the
record, the trial court's decision regarding its findings and distribution of marital property was
also based, at least in part, on its erroneous decision to impute $161,967 in potential income
to Father. Therefore, as with his second assignment of error addressed above, Father's third
assignment of error is likewise sustained.
{¶ 23} Father's Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 24} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED APPELLANT TO PAY A
PORTION OF APPELLEE'S ATTORNEYS' FEES.
{¶ 25} In his fourth assignment of error, Father argues the trial court erred by ordering
him to pay Mother $5,785 towards her attorney fees. Father, however, did not raise this
-7-
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
issue as part of his timely-filed objections to the magistrate's April 5, 2013 decision
recommending their divorce. By failing to file an objection to the magistrate's decision on this
basis, a requirement of which he was explicitly informed, Father has effectively waived any
such claim on appeal. See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv); see, e.g., Needham v. Jones, 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2012-07-135, 2013-Ohio-2965, ¶ 22; Ruble v. Ruble, 12th Dist. Madison No.
CA2010-09-019, 2011-Ohio-3350, ¶ 46; Mavity v. Mavity, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2000-12-
244 and CA2000-12-247, 2002 WL 205422, *8 (Feb. 11, 2002). Father's fourth assignment
of error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 26} Mother's Cross-Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 27} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ONLY $5787 OF
APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY'S FEES.
{¶ 28} In her single cross-assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court erred by
ordering Father to pay only $5,785 in attorney fees when her litigation expenses were
actually in excess of $19,000.
{¶ 29} Pursuant to R.C. 3105.73(A), in an action for divorce:
a court may award all or part of reasonable attorney's fees and
litigation expenses to either party if the court finds the award
equitable. In determining whether an award is equitable, the
court may consider the parties' marital assets and income, any
award of temporary spousal support, the conduct of the parties,
and any other relevant factors the court deems appropriate.
{¶ 30} It is well-established that an award of attorney fees is within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Casper v. Casper, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2012-12-128 and
CA2012-12-129, 2013-Ohio-4329, ¶ 62. In turn, a trial court's decision to award attorney
fees will be reversed only if it amounts to an abuse of discretion. Reynolds-Cornett, 2014-
Ohio-2893 at ¶ 28, citing Foppe v. Foppe, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2010-06-056, 2011-Ohio-
49, ¶ 34.
-8-
Warren CA2013-09-087
CA2013-10-096
{¶ 31} Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of
discretion in the trial court's decision to award Mother $5,787 in attorney fees, as opposed to
some larger portion of her overall attorney fees and litigation expenses. The record is clear
that the trial court considered the conduct of Father in determining the necessity and
reasonableness of attorney fees, which it has discretion to do.
{¶ 32} However, in order to effectuate such an award, the trial court allowed Mother to
retain Father's share of an IRA valued at $11,574. Based upon our decision in Father's first,
second and third assignments of error, we find the trial court's decision to award Mother the
entire share of this IRA as Father's contribution towards her attorney fees may also be
impacted by such an award. Therefore, although we find no abuse of discretion in the trial
court's decision to award Mother with only $5,787 in attorney fees, the trial court's decision
must nevertheless be reversed so that this entire case can be reviewed anew in light of our
decision finding the trial court erred by imputing potential income to Father in the amount of
$161,967. Therefore, Mother's single cross-assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 33} Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further
proceedings.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-9-