Robinson v. Robinson

5 Citing cases

  1. Peters v. Peters

    2006 Ohio 5815 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    Specifically, this Court found that the trial court erred by awarding spousal support for only a portion of the time Ms. Peters needed to complete her education, in contravention of R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(k). This Court also noted Ms. Peters' primary caregiver status, the ages of the children, the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, the health of parties' youngest child, as well as the amount of time Ms. Peters would need for retraining, citing Robinson v. Robinson (May 8, 1998), 2nd Dist. Nos. 16613 and 16614. We found that the "trial court erred in failing to provide spousal support for appellant until she completes her education and obtains employment."

  2. Meeks v. Meeks

    2006 Ohio 642 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    This is not a situation as in Waller v. Waller, 163 Ohio App.3d 303, 2005-Ohio-4891, at ¶ 30, and similar cases, where the trial court specifically determined that it would not be necessary to liquidate assets to satisfy the court's property division, and, thus, there would be no immediate, certain tax consequences. See, also, Guidubaldi v. Guidubaldi (1990), 64 Ohio App.3d 361, 367-368 (finding the proposed tax consequences were speculative because nothing in the record suggested there must be a premature withdrawal of retirement monies to satisfy the court's order); Gould v. Gould, Butler App. No. CA2004-01-010, 2005-Ohio-416, at ¶ 49 (wife was not required to withdraw funds from her IRA to meet any obligation imposed by the court, and there is no evidence in the record that she needed to do so to meet any current financial obligation; thus, any tax consequences are speculative); Robinson v. Robinson (May 8, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16613 (the trial court did not require specific assets to be liquidated, and the husband was awarded other assets that could have been sold to pay the court ordered obligation that would not have resulted in tax consequences); White v. White (Feb. 18, 1998), Summit App. No. 18275 (where nothing in the record suggests that an asset must be liquidated, tax consequences are speculative and need not be considered). Here, the record suggests, and Carl admits that the only assets available to satisfy the court's order are the Team Investors real estate holdings.

  3. Peters v. Peters

    2004 Ohio 2517 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

    The record reveals that the parties' eight-year-old suffers from asthma, which causes her to miss school more frequently than a normal child. In Robinson v. Robinson (May 8, 1998), 2nd Dist. Nos. 16613 and 16614, the Second District Court of Appeals upheld an award of spousal support for six years following a seven and one-half year marriage. In reaching its decision, the Second District considered the ages of the children, the fact that the mother had been a full-time homemaker since their birth, the relatively high standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and the amount of time needed by the mother for retraining.

  4. Miller v. Miller

    Trial No. DR-9403242. Appeal No. C-980892 (Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 17, 1999)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a shared-parenting worksheet was required to be used despite the parties' agreement that the split-parental rights worksheet should apply, because a shared-parenting plan was in place

    Robinson v. Robinson (May 8, 1998), Montgomery App. Nos. 16613 and 16614, unreported. R.C. 3113.215(A)(2) defines gross income as "the total of all earned and unearned income from all sources during a calendar year, whether or not the income is taxable, and includes, but is not limited to, income from salaries, wages, overtime pay and bonuses to the extent described in division (B)(5)(d) of this section * * * and potential cash flow from any source." In calculating gross income, the trial court must calculate bonus income separate from other income.

  5. Mullen v. Mullen

    Case No. CA97-08-089 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 13, 1998)   Cited 3 times

    John does not allege that he needs further education so he can pursue a career. Robinson v. Robinson (May 8, 1998), Montgomery App. Nos. 16613, 16614, unreported, at 25; R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(k). John has not alleged that he has contributed to Carol's education.