 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Avery v. Avery3/8/2002
poundage). Virginia agrees that the entered amount is wrong, but says that poundage should not be included. In this regard, Virginia relies on R.C. 3119.01(C)(7), which includes within the definition of gross income various items, including "spousal support actually received."
{ } We might accept Virginia's argument if the spousal support were being received by Joseph as gross income. However, in this instance, the spousal support is an adjustment to, or deduction from, Joseph's gross income. Therefore, the definition of gross income in R.C. 3119.01 is irrelevant. On the other hand, R.C. 3119.022, line 10, provides for deduction of "court-ordered spousal support paid to any spouse." Since poundage is not paid to a spouse or former spouse, we do not think it should be included within the adjustments to gross income. If the legislature felt poundage should be included as an adjustment, it could have said so.
{ } Accordingly, the amount that should be reflected on line 10 of the worksheet is $13,200, which is the amount of spousal support paid to Virginia. Accordingly, the first cross-assignment of error is sustained in part, and this matter will be reversed and remanded for correction of the worksheet.
VIII.
{ } In the second cross-assignment of error, Joseph contends that trial court erred by charging Joseph with Virginia's coverture fraction of retirement benefits. Virginia agrees that the trial court erred in this regard. Consequently, the second cross-assignment of error is sustained. This case will be remanded to the trial court with instructions to charge each party on the Child Support Computation Worksheet with the appropriate share of retirement income (about $17,646 for Joseph and $7,789 for Virginia).
IX.
{ } Joseph's third cross-assignment of error relates to court orders about removal of a piano from Virginia's home. In this regard, Joseph complains because the court ordered him to remove his father's piano from the house. Joseph contends that the piano is not his property and he lacks legal standing to remove it. We disagree with Joseph.
{ } During the divorce hearing, the parties placed certain agreements in the record. One such agreement dealt with the piano. The parties noted that the piano belonged to Joseph's father. They then agreed that Joseph would have thirty days to remove the piano and that Joseph would choose and pay for the moving company. While Joseph claims certain events transpired, including the fact that he was "pressured" minutes before the hearing into agreeing to move the piano, the matters being raised are not in the record and cannot be considered on appeal. See, e.g., Doctor v. Doctor (Feb. 4, 2000), Greene App. No. 99-CA-51, unreported, 2000 WL 125938, p. 2.
{ } Based on the preceding discussion, the third cross-assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.
X.
{ } In the fourth cross-assignment of error, Joseph argues that the trial court erred in requiring him to provide dependent health care coverage through his employer's insurance company (CIGNA). The final decree obligates Joseph to provide dependent group health insurance if available at a reasonable price, pursuant to the dependent health care order filed with the decree. The dependent health care order which was filed with the decree then designates CIGNA HMO as the appropriate health care provider.
{ } Joseph claims this is error because R.C. 3113.217 (which requires dependent health care orders) was repealed before the date of the hearing. Joseph also claims that he wants to provide insurance through the TRICARE program, which offers more coverage for less cost.<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|