Spearman v. Spearman , 2016 Ohio 11 ( 2016 )

[Cite as Spearman v. Spearman, 2016-Ohio-11.]
COURT OF APPEALS
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
JAMIE L. SPEARMAN : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 15CA10
PHILLIP S. SPEARMAN :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Knox County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, Case No. 14DC01-0014
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 4, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JAMES GILES PHILLIP LEHMKUHL
109 East High Street 101 North Mulberry Street
Mount Vernon, OH 43050 Mount Vernon, OH 43050
Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant appeals the April 21, 2015 judgment entry of the Knox County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, overruling his objections to the February 10,
2015, Magistrate’s Decision.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} Appellant Phillip Spearman (“Husband”) and appellee Jamie Spearman
(“Wife”) were married on April 16, 1988. On January 15, 2014, Wife filed a complaint for
divorce. The parties have three children. At the time of the final hearing, the two older
children had reached the age of majority.
{¶3} A trial was held on October 16, 2014. Husband testified that he wants to
keep the martial residence and will assume the approximately $67,695 mortgage
remaining on the residence. Husband is in good health and worked full-time during the
marriage at UPS. Husband agreed that Wife did not have to work during the marriage
unless she wanted to. Husband testified that he borrowed $30,000 from his father in
January of 2014 to pay down credit cards and get out of debt. Husband has not been
able to pay his father the $500 monthly payment on this debt. Husband stated that his
father will not take collection action against him even though Husband has not made the
monthly payments. Husband did not discuss borrowing this money with Wife as it was
done after the left the marital residence.
{¶4} Husband testified that, since January 15, 2014, his monthly bills consistently
exceed his income. Husband asserted that while he has to pay 75% of the martial debt,
Wife only has to pay 25% of the martial debt. Husband stated his monthly budget is
$3,421.10 per month, but his income is only $2,081.45 per month. This $2,081.45 figure
Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 3
has health insurance and 401(k) deductions taken out; however, Husband included health
insurance and 401(k) expenses in his monthly budget expenses. Husband stated that he
cannot pay spousal support because he does not have the money.
{¶5} Wife testified that she is in good health. She is a high school graduate who
is currently working at a travel management company. During the marriage, she worked
part-time around the children’s schedules. At the time of the trial, she lived with her
parents, but had plans to move out and establish a home separate from her parents. Wife
testified to her monthly expenses, including rent, utilities, food, transportation, clothing,
child-related expenses, and insurance premiums. Wife stated her monthly budget would
be $2,858. Wife’s budget included expenses from the parties’ minor child who resides
primarily with her, but did not include the monthly payments required to service the debt
she was ordered to pay. Wife testified that she did not know about the loan from
Husband’s father until after the divorce was filed.
{¶6} The magistrate issued a decision on February 10, 2015. The magistrate
found that each party had net assets of $4,464. Wife was assigned liabilities totaling
$14,657 and Husband $101,174. Husband’s liabilities included $67,695 on the martial
residence that Husband sought to keep, a $6,989 property settlement to Wife, $6,840 in
credit card debt, and $14,000 owed to his father. Wife’s liabilities of $14,657 included a
credit card debt of $10,690 and payments on a loan used to purchase a vehicle for the
parties’ child.
{¶7} With regards to spousal support, the magistrate completed a detailed
analysis of each factor of R.C. 3105.18. The magistrate found the income of the parties
to be: $24,960 annually for Wife and $47,090.20 annually for Husband. As to the parties’
Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 4
earning abilities, the magistrate found that Husband is earning twice as much as Wife, as
Wife’s earning ability is $25,000 annually and Husband’s earning ability is $47,000
annually. Both parties are in good health. Husband has a 401(k) retirement plan that will
be equally divided among the parties. The parties were married for twenty-six (26) years.
With regards to the parties’ standard of living, the magistrate found that the parties lived
marginally and had a modest standard of living. Wife is a high school graduate and the
magistrate stated that no evidence was presented as to Husband’s education. As to
assets and liabilities, the magistrate found that each party received total assets of $4,464.
Further, that Husband is to pay child support of $443.19 per month. The magistrate stated
that spousal support would be tax deductible to Husband would be income to Wife.
{¶8} The magistrate found that Wife has an estimated budget of $2,858 per
month. Further, that Husband’s estimated monthly living expenses of $3,421 per month
included a $500 monthly payment to his father; however, Husband testified that he is not
currently paying this debt. Accordingly, the magistrate found that Husband’s appropriate
and reasonable budget per month is $2,900, including child support, which will end in
June of 2016 when his monthly living expenses will be reduced. The magistrate also
noted that Husband reduced his debt by $7,553 during the pendency of the divorce case.
The magistrate found that factors (f), (j), (k), and (m) were not applicable to this case.
Based upon the analysis of factors contained in R.C. 3105.18, the magistrate found
spousal support to be reasonable and appropriate.
{¶9} Husband filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, arguing that his
income is insufficient to pay spousal support.
Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 5
{¶10} The trial court issued a judgment entry on April 21, 2015. The trial court
found that the magistrate properly considered all the statutory factors with regards to
spousal support. The trial court stated that especially significant is the length of the
marriage and the fact that Husband’s income is nearly twice that of Wife. The trial court
found that the parties have similar monthly living expenses. Further, that Husband’s
taxable income will be reduced by the payment of spousal support, so his take home pay
will increase. The trial court overruled Husband’s objections to the magistrate’s decision
and affirmed the award of spousal support of $400 per month until Wife remarries,
cohabitates with an unrelated adult male, or is earning approximately $40,000 or more
annually, whichever occurs first.
{¶11} Husband appeals the April 21, 2015 judgment entry and assigns the
following as error:
{¶12} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REQUIRING APPELLANT TO PAY
SPOUSAL SUPPORT TO APPELLEE WHEN IT IS FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR
HIM TO DO SO, GIVEN HIS DEBT OBLIGATIONS, AND HIS REASONABLE LIVING
EXPENSES.”
I.
{¶13} In his assignment of error, Husband argues that the trial court abused its
discretion in awarding spousal support in an amount which will cause his monthly
expenses to exceed his income. Husband contends the trial court erred when it imposed
a financial obligation upon Husband when he cannot afford to pay it. We disagree.
{¶14} A trial court’s decision concerning spousal support may be altered only if it
constitutes an abuse of discretion. Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 554 N.E.2d 83Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 6
(1990). 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, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) provides
that a trial court may award spousal support when it is “appropriate and reasonable.” R.C.
3105.18(C)(1) sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether
spousal support is appropriate and reasonable and in determining the nature, amount,
terms of payment, and duration of spousal support.
{¶15} These factors include: (a) income of the parties, from all sources * * *; (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; (j) the contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning ability
of the other party, including, but not limited to, any party’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
* * *; (l) the tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal support; (m) the lost
income production capacity of either party that resulted from that party’s marital
responsibilities; and (n) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and
equitable.
Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 7
{¶16} Trial courts must consider all the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C). We have
previously held that a trial court need not acknowledge all evidence relative to each and
every factor listed in R.C. 3105.18(C) and we may not assume that the evidence was not
considered. Hutta v. Hutta, 177 Ohio App.3d 414, 2008-Ohio-3756, 894 N.E.2d 1282 (5th
Dist.). The trial court need only set forth sufficient detail to enable a reviewing court to
determine the appropriateness of the award. Id, citing Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio
St.3d 93, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (1988).
{¶17} In its judgment entry, the magistrate specifically cited and analyzed all the
relevant factors of R.C. 3105.18 in determining that spousal support is appropriate and
reasonable. Further, in the trial court’s judgment entry overruling Husband’s objections,
the trial court found that all the statutory factors were appropriately considered by the
magistrate.
{¶18} Husband argues that since he cannot afford to pay spousal support and that
if he has to pay spousal support his monthly cash flow will be a deficit, the trial court
abused its discretion in awarding spousal support. However, simply because spousal
support creates a negative cash flow for one of the parties does not necessarily lead to a
finding of an abuse of discretion. Compton v. Compton, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2014CA00207, 2015-Ohio-4327; Taylor v. Taylor, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2013CA00130,
2013-Ohio-4958.
{¶19} In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the magistrate and trial court’s
decision regarding spousal support and our review of the record reveals the presence of
credible evidence supporting the trial court’s determinations.
Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 8
{¶20} The parties were married for twenty-six years. Husband’s income is nearly
twice that of Wife’s. The parties have similar monthly living expenses. Wife testified to
her monthly expenses of $2,858 per month. Though Husband argued that his expenses
were $3,421 per month, the magistrate found Husband’s expenses per month to be
$2,900, including child support. This determination is supported by competent and
credible evidence, as Husband testified that he is not currently paying a $500 per month
debt to his father and that his father would not move to collect on the debt. Additionally,
Husband’s child support obligation will end in June of 2016 which will reduce Husband’s
monthly living expenses. The magistrate and trial court further noted that Husband’s
taxable income will be reduced by the payment of spousal support and thus his take home
pay will increase.
{¶21} While Husband contends that he cannot afford spousal support because his
proportion of debt is larger than Wife’s, the magistrate divided the assets and liabilities
such that an equal award of net assets were awarded to each party ($4,464). Further,
Husband’s share of the debt was larger than Wife’s because it included the approximately
$68,000 mortgage on the martial home which Husband retained and a debt owed to his
father that Husband is not currently paying. Husband testified at the hearing that he
desired to retain the marital home despite the mortgage obligation and payment to Wife
for 50% of the equity in the marital home. Further, that he was not paying the debt owed
to his father.
{¶22} Based upon the record before us, we find the amount of spousal support
ordered is not an abuse of discretion. Husband’s assignment of error is overruled.
Knox County, Case No. 15CA10 9
{¶23} The April 21, 2015 judgment entry of the Knox County Common Pleas
Court, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Farmer, J., and
Wise, J., concur