Opinion
24-COA-008
09-18-2024
JAMES E. POWERS Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATALIE R. POWERS Defendant-Appellee
For Plaintiff-Appellant ELIZABETH R. WERNER, KAILA R. TAYLOR, The Nigh Law Group, LLC. For Defendant-Appellee NATALIE R. POWERS, PRO SE.
Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 22-DIV-104.
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant ELIZABETH R. WERNER, KAILA R. TAYLOR, The Nigh Law Group, LLC.
For Defendant-Appellee NATALIE R. POWERS, PRO SE.
Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J., Judges:
OPINION
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant James E. Powers ("Husband") appeals the January 11, 2024 Judgment Entry entered by the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which overruled his objections to the magistrate's September 14, 2023 decision and found there was no change of circumstances warranting a modification of the spousal support agreement. Defendant-appellee is Natalie R. Powers ("Wife").
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Husband and Wife were married on March 5, 1997, in Ashland, Kentucky. No children were born as issue of the marriage. Wife filed a complaint for legal separation on September 29, 2020. On February 2, 2021, the parties filed a legal separation agreement and moved the trial court to adopt the same. The parties submitted an amended legal separation agreement on July 20, 2021. Via Judgment Entry/Decree of Legal Separation filed August 18, 2021, the trial court granted the parties a legal separation, approved and incorporated the amended separation agreement, and ordered Husband to pay spousal support to Wife in accordance with the amended separation agreement, to wit: $702.00/month for a term of 7 years and 6 months, effective October 1, 2020.
{¶3} On July 26, 2022, Husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife filed an answer on August 24, 2022, in which she admitted all allegations set forth in the complaint except she denied having been guilty of conduct which would constitute grounds for divorce. The trial court conducted an uncontested final hearing on November 28, 2022. Via Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed November 29, 2022, the trial court granted a divorce to Husband, approved and incorporated the parties' July 20, 2021 amended separation agreement, and ordered Husband to pay spousal support to Wife in the amount of $702.00/month, in accordance with the amended separation agreement.
{¶4} Husband filed a motion to modify spousal support on February 24, 2023. Therein, Husband requested the trial court modify his spousal support obligation to $0/month. Husband explained, at the end of the divorce proceedings, he learned Wife's salary had increased from $37,000.00/year to over $47,000.00/year with additional part-time earnings of $2,000.00-$3,000.00/year. Husband's income, on the other hand, had decreased by approximately $20,000.00/year since the parties executed the July 20, 2021 amended separation agreement.
{¶5} The magistrate conducted a hearing on Husband's motion to modify on August 30, 2023. Via Magistrate's Decision filed September 14, 2023, the magistrate found the change in income was not substantial to warrant a modification of spousal support. The magistrate also found the changes in the parties' incomes were foreseeable to the parties, noting Husband's income had generally varied over the years, and Husband should have been aware Wife returned to school and would have an increase in income. The magistrate further found the parties voluntarily agreed to the amount and duration of spousal support.
{¶6} Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Therein, Husband asserted the magistrate erred: 1) in finding the change in income was not substantial enough to warrant a modification of spousal support; 2) in determining Husband's 2022 and 2023 income; and 3) in determining the changes in the parties' incomes should have been contemplated by the parties at the time spousal support was established. Husband concluded the magistrate's decision denying his motion to modify spousal support was against the manifest weight of the evidence and the magistrate abused its discretion in failing to grant the modification. Wife filed a memorandum in opposition to Husband's objections. Husband filed supplemental objections after receipt of the transcript of the magistrate's hearing.
{¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed January 11, 2024, the trial court overruled Husband's objections. The trial court found the extent of the change in Wife's income was foreseeable, but Husband elected not to discover the information. The trial court also found there had been no change in Wife's income since November, 2022, only a change in Husband's knowledge of the same. The trial court agreed with the magistrate the change in income was not substantial to warrant a modification of Husband's spousal support award and the changes in both parties' incomes were foreseeable.
{¶8} It is from this judgment entry Husband appeals, raising the following assignments of error:
I. THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT NOVEMBER 29, 2022, AS THE DATE THAT THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT ORDER WAS ESTABLISHED.
II. THE COURT ERRED IN NOT DETERMINING THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO TRIGGER A REVIEW OF THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT OBLIGATION.
III.THE COURT'S DECISION AND ENTRY HAD FACTUAL CLAIMS THAT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED.
IV. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE CHANGES IN JAMES' AND NATALIE'S INCOMES WERE CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT.
Standard of Review
{¶9} An appellate court reviews the modification of spousal support under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989). An abuse of discretion implies the trial court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying this standard, a reviewing court is precluded from simply substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd, 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993).
I, II
{¶10} We elect to address Husband's first and second assignments of error together. In his first assignment of error, Husband contends the trial court erred in using November 29, 2022, the date of the filing of the Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce, as the date on which the order of spousal support was established. In his second assignment of error, Husband maintains the trial court erred in failing to find the change in circumstances was sufficient to warrant modification of his spousal support obligation.
{¶11} R.C. 3105.18 governs the modification of spousal support awards. In order for a trial court to have jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support following a divorce, the divorce decree or separation agreement must specifically reserve the court's jurisdiction to modify the spousal-support award. R.C. 3105.18(E)(1). Furthermore, the moving party must also demonstrate a change in circumstances, which means "any increase or involuntary decrease in the party's wages, salary, bonuses, living expenses, or medical expenses." R.C. 3105.18(F)(1). The change in circumstances must be "substantial" such that the existing award is no longer reasonable or appropriate. R.C. 3105.18(F)(1)(a). The change in circumstances also must not have been "taken into account by the parties or the court as a basis for the existing award when it was established or last modified, whether or not the change in circumstances was foreseeable." R.C. 3105.18(F)(1)(b). The party requesting a modification of spousal support has the burden of establishing the need for a modification. Manos v. Manos, 2015-Ohio-2932, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.), citing Tremaine v. Tremaine, 111 Ohio App.3d 703, 706 (2nd Dist. 1996).
{¶12} Husband submits his "spousal support obligation was established, and brought into existence, by the Amended Separation Agreement" and "[t]he parties agreed and stipulated the effective date of October 1, 2020, therein. Brief of Appellant at p. 7. Husband continues, "[e]ven if the Court does not find the agreement of the parties' [sic] persuasive as to the 'establishment' of the order, the order was clearly established the date in which the Amended Legal Separation Agreement was incorporated into a final Decree of Legal Separation, to wit: August 18, 2021." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at pp. 7-8. Husband explains the trial court's use of "that incorrect date impacts the determination of the change in circumstances and the facts and foundation for which the original support obligation was determined." Id. at p. 8.
{¶13} In its January 11, 2024 Judgment Entry, the trial court addressed Husband's objection to the magistrate's use of November 29, 2022, as the date the order of spousal support was established as follows:
While the separation agreement may have been filed and adopted in a different case, the Court notes that in this case, the separation agreement was adopted as an order of the Court in a Decree of Divorce on November 29, 2022. At a hearing on November 28, 2022, both parties would have been placed under oath, stated that they understood the agreement they had reached and asked the Court to adopt that agreement. The Court sees no reason to go back to when the separation agreement was created, since it is clear both parties agreed the spousal support payment was appropriate in November 2022. November 29, 2022 is the date the order for spousal support was established in this case.
January 11, 2024 Judgment Entry at p. 2, unpaginated.
{¶14} We agree with the trial court. However, assuming, arguendo, the trial court erred in determining the order of spousal support was established on November 29, 20022, we find such error did not affect the trial court's ultimate determination Husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of his spousal support obligation.
{¶15} Husband filed his complaint for divorce on July 26, 2022. In his Affidavit of Income and Expenses filed contemporaneously with his complaint for divorce, Husband listed his salary "2 years ago" as $103,523.00, and his salary "last year" as $81,023.00. The change in circumstances, i.e., the decrease in Husband's income, upon which he based his motion for modification occurred before the parties' divorce became final. At the uncontested final hearing on November 28, 2022, Husband did not object to the trial court approving and adopting the parties' July 20, 2021 amended separation agreement, which included his spousal support obligation in the amount of $702.00/month. Further, as evidenced by his signature on the last page, Husband approved the trial court's November 29, 2022 Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce, in which the trial court expressly ordered Husband to pay Wife spousal support. Husband cannot now seek a modification of his spousal support obligation based about a change in circumstances
{¶16} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court did not err in utilizing November 29, 2022, as the date on which the order of spousal support was established. We further find the trial court did not err in finding Husband failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of his spousal support obligation. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Husband's motion to modify.
{¶17} Husband's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
III
{¶18} In his third assignment of error, Husband submits the trial court's decision and entry included factual claims which were not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing on his motion for modification. Husband suggests "both the Magistrate and the Judge took liberties with the evidence submitted and relied on facts that were not submitted to them to determine if there was a change in circumstances." Brief of Appellant at pp. 12-13. We disagree.
{¶19} Husband points to three specific determinations by the trial court to support his argument. First, Husband argues the trial court's conclusions regarding the parties' gross and net incomes were not supported by the record and the evidence. Next, Husband contends the trial court incorrectly calculated Wife's income. Finally, Husband maintains the trial court erred in identifying his income.
{¶20} Husband's pay stubs from his current and former employer, his 2021, and 2022 tax returns, and Wife's pay stubs and 2022 tax returns were admitted into evidence at the magistrate's hearing on Husband's motion to modify. Upon review, we find the documentary evidence coupled with the parties' testimony supports the trial court's conclusions. The evidence admitted necessarily showed the parties' gross and net incomes. Additionally, even if the trial court erred in its calculations of the parties' income as outlined in Husband's brief to this Court or conclusions relative thereto, we find any such error did not affect the trial court's finding the change in circumstances was not sufficient to warrant modification of Husband's spousal support obligation.
{¶21} Husband's third assignment of error is overruled.
IV
{¶22} In his final assignment of error, Husband asserts the trial court erred in holding the changes in the parties' incomes were contemplated at the time the order of spousal support was established.
{¶23} Having found, supra, Husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of his spousal support obligation, we find Husband's fourth assignment of error to be moot.
{¶24} The judgment of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J. Wise, P.J. and King, J. concur.