 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Young3/22/2002
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
This is an accelerated calendar appeal submitted on the briefs of the parties from the judgment entry of divorce issued by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in which the trial court granted appellant, Diane Elizabeth Young, and appellee, James Stoner Young, a divorce.
Appellant and appellee were married on January 15, 1966. The parties had two children born as issue of their marriage, both of whom are now emancipated. After thirty-four years of marriage, appellant filed a complaint for divorce on January 28, 2000. Subsequently, appellee filed an answer to the complaint and a countercomplaint for divorce. During the proceedings, appellee was ordered to pay appellant $1,000 in temporary spousal support.
This matter came on for a hearing before the trial court on January 30, 2001. During the hearing, the parties entered into oral stipulations regarding the value and/or disposition of the certain properties. For instance, the parties stipulated that the fair market value of the marital residence was $148,000, and that the sales price was listed at $154,900. The parties further stipulated that appellant and appellee would retain their respective motor vehicles and pay any outstanding balance owed thereon, entered stipulations regarding the disposition of household goods and furniture, and agreed that each party was to retain his or her respective checking account. Also, in pertinent part, there exists an American Legacy SEP account, a mutual fund, which is in appellee's name and contains a balance of $381,399. As to this account, the parties agreed that one-half of the balance would be transferred to appellant by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO").
After taking the matter under consideration, the trial court issued a judgment entry on March 1, 2001. In relevant part to this appeal, the trial court found as follows: (1) appellee was ordered to pay spousal support in the sum of $800 per month for sixty months. This support was to terminate if appellant were to marry or cohabit with a person in a marital relationship, or upon the death of either party; (2) the marital residence was ordered to be sold and the sale proceeds to be divided equally between the parties; and (3) the SEP account, valued at $381,399, was to be divided equally between the parties by a QDRO.
It is from the March 1, 2001 decree of divorce appellant appeals, advancing a single assignment of error for our consideration:
"The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused it's discretion in awarding spousal support in both the amount awarded and the duration of the award which should have been continuing[.]"
In this sole assignment of error, appellant makes numerous arguments to challenge the trial court's award of spousal support, and we will address each one individually. But, for organizational purposes, we will consider these arguments out of order.
First, appellant contends that the findings issued by the trial court failed to provide sufficient detail to justify a termination of spousal support after sixty months. According to appellant, the trial court's findings are unclear as to why the spousal support was not continuing or permanent in nature when appellant seems to fall within the exception announced in Kunkle v. Kunkle (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 64, paragraph one of the syllabus; to wit: when there was a marriage of a long duration, the parties are of an advanced age, or the spouse was a homemaker with little opportunity to develop meaningful employment outside of the home, an award of spousal support for an indefinite time may be appropriate.
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.
|
|