 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cho v. Cho12/23/2003
. This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties' briefs. Plaintiff-Appellant, Donald Cho, appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which granted a divorce between he and Defendant-Appellee, Julie Catherine Cho. The issues before this court are whether the trial court erred when it calculated child support and spousal support.
. Donald argues the trial court erred when awarding child support since it did not consider the statutory deviation factors in R.C. 3119.23 when it awarded an amount greater than that found in the child support guidelines. But the trial court was not required to consider those factors since the combined income of the parties was greater than $150,000, and subject to calculation pursuant to R.C. 3119.04(B) only. The trial court's spousal support award was reasonable in both length and amount since it is awarded for the time necessary for Julie to resume and complete her education and is in an amount necessary to cover her monthly expenses when taking into account the tax consequences of awarding that amount of spousal support to her. For these reasons, the trial court's decision is affirmed. Facts and Standard of Review
. The Chos were married on June 19, 1993. When the parties were married, Donald was a second year medical student and Julie was employed as a dental hygienist. At that time, Julie had an associates degree in dental hygiene and a bachelors degree in psychology. She was thinking about pursuing her masters in psychology, but after the birth of the couple's first child on March 3, 1994, the parties agreed that she should be a stay-at-home mother. So she did not pursue further education and was unemployed. Subsequently, the parties had two more children. After their second child, Julie had back surgery and the doctor recommended that she should not be a dental hygienist again.
. On July 4, 2001, Donald began working for the Heart Center of Northeastern Ohio pursuant to a contract for three and one-half years. In the first year of his employment, Donald was to earn $175,000. His salary rose annually, to $220,000 in 2002 and to $240,000 in 2003. It appears this was Donald's first job after completing his residency since both parties acknowledged that this was the first time he was making substantial sums of money. At the time, the parties were living in a home in Austintown, Ohio, took a family vacation every year to North Carolina, and Julie and the children also flew with Donald on his business trips to conferences. When Donald began his employment at the Heart Center, the couple discussed moving into a nicer home, buying a vacation home, and taking advantage of Donald's new income in other ways.
. Either in December 2001 or January 2002, Donald moved out of the marital residence and filed for divorce. While the divorce was pending Donald supported Julie and the children pursuant to temporary child and spousal support orders. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. In the divorce decree, the trial court acknowledged that the parties' combined income was greater than the upper amount calculated in the child support guidelines, so it awarded more than that amount. It also found spousal support was appropriate and reasonable and awarded $4,000 per month in spousal support to Julie for a period of four years.
. Both of the assigned errors are subject to the same standard of review. A trial court is vested with broad discretion in domestic matters and its decision will not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Martin v. Martin (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 292, 294-295. An abuse of discretion connotes
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|