Bowen v. Thomas
Decision Date | 28 March 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 9-94-58,9-94-58 |
Citation | 102 Ohio App.3d 196,656 N.E.2d 1328 |
Parties | BOWEN, Appellee, v. THOMAS, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Spohn, Spohn & Zeigler and S. Fredrick Zeigler, Marion, for appellee.
Wilson & Kochheiser Co., L.P.A., and Robert E. Wilson, Marion, for appellant.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Daniel E. Thomas ("appellant"), from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County granting the plaintiff's request for divorce and determining the parties' parental rights and responsibilities. Appellant challenges as error the court's order of spousal support and child support, the court's denial of his motion for shared parenting, and the court's refusal to change the surname of the parties' children to Thomas.
Daniel Thomas and Linda M. Bowen ("appellee") were married in Las Vegas on April 25, 1992, following approximately a two or three-month relationship. Appellee had just learned that she was pregnant with twins. Two days after their wedding, the parties returned to Marion, Ohio, where each of them owned a house. Although they had planned to live together in appellee's house, appellee refused to allow appellant to move into her home.
Appellee filed her complaint for divorce on August 5, 1992, requesting a divorce, spousal support, and an equal division of marital property. Appellee also stated in the complaint that she was pregnant with twins. Appellant filed his answer on August 13, 1992, admitting that the parties were incompatible, and denying that he was the father of the twins 1 (who were subsequently born on November 24, 1992).
Following three hearings on the parties' motions and complaints, the referee issued his report and recommendations. The trial court, with a few modifications, affirmed the referee's report, finding that the parties were entitled to a divorce on the ground of incompatibility, that there was no marital property to divide, that appellee was to be the residential parent and legal custodian of the children, and that appellee was unable to seek work while breast-feeding the twins. Accordingly, the court ordered appellant to pay child support in the amount of $604 per month, and to pay spousal support in the amount of $285 per month for six years, to help appellee meet her expenses until the twins started school. The court ordered the parties to comply with the court's standard parental visitation schedule, and further ordered appellee to stop breast feeding the children, if necessary, in order to comply with the visitation order. Appellant appealed the court's final judgment, asserting five assignments of error.
"The trial court erred in failing to consider the shared parenting plan filed by the Appellant pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 3109.04(G) which was filed at least 30 days prior to Appellant's case in Chief."
This assignment of error is not supported by the record. A review of the record reveals that the court did consider appellant's request for shared parenting, but determined that it would not be in the best interest of the children. Moreover, the trial court also found that the parties herein were unable to cooperate or agree on anything, much less how to rear their children. The referee's report, which was adopted by the trial court in its judgment entry, recommended as follows:
Finding appellant's argument without merit, we overrule the assignment of error.
"The trial court erred when it failed to follow the statutory outline for spousal support required by Ohio Revised Code 3105.18."
Appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay appellee spousal support for a period of six years, in light of the facts of this case. Following a review of the record, we must agree with appellant's contention.
The referee asserted that his recommendation of six years' spousal support was based upon a "careful consideration of the evidence and the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C)." However, it was also clearly stated that the only real basis for spousal support was R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(f), which provides that the court must consider "the extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because he will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home." None of the other statutory factors apply to this case, considering that these parties never established a marital home and therefore had no marital "standard of living." Furthermore, appellee will suffer no unusual hardship in seeking employment once the children are weaned, which would certainly occur long before the children are six years old. Therefore, although spousal support may be appropriate for some period of time, we find that an award of spousal support for six years is unreasonable. Although rearing twins is certainly a demanding task, at some point it would not be inappropriate for appellee, who was self-supporting prior to her marriage, to seek employment so that she may contribute to her own and her children's support. Therefore, the second assignment of error is sustained.
"The trial court erred in failing to provide frequent and continuous contact between Appellant and his children in accordance with Ohio Revised Code 3109.051(A), (D)."
This assignment of error is not well taken. Appellant argues that the court failed to consider the statutory factors relevant to parental visitation when ordering visitation pursuant to the Marion County guidelines for noncustodial parent visitation. The court's guidelines provide for appellant to visit with his children at least every other weekend, holidays, and extended summer vacations when the children reach an appropriate age. The record reflects that the court made this determination after consideration of all the relevant statutory factors. The assignment of error is overruled.
"The trial court erred in basing 1994 Child support on 1992 income and further failing to include all deductions as required by Ohio Revised Code 3113.215."
Appellant's fourth assignment of error is well taken, in part, in that the trial court erred in calculating child support in this case. As to appellant's contention that the court should have considered child support appellant allegedly pays on behalf of another child, we find that the record does not support such a deduction. Appellant submitted no evidence in support of his claim that he pays child support to another woman. R.C. 3113.215(B)(5)(b) ( ).
The trial court stated that it based its child support calculation solely on appellant's 1992 personal income tax returns (which we do not find in the record), and on testimony elicited at trial. The referee's report provides as follows:
The referee's report as to child support, adopted for the most part by the trial court in its judgment, is not supported by the record. There is simply not enough evidence on the record to support any award that the court might make which would be in the best interest of the children. A court may not simply find that "there was no evidence" upon which to determine a party's income and then arbitrarily assign its own figures in determining child support.
As stated by the referee, appellant is the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of his own closely held corporation. As such, he has unlimited control over the distribution of the corporation's income and assets for tax and reporting purposes. The trial court's use of only a federal tax return and the appellant's own limited admissions to determine child support was an abuse of discretion. When determining the personal income, for child support purposes, of "a parent who is the only stockholder and who has control of all income and disbursements of a corporation," a court must consider all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jarvis v. Witter, 2004 Ohio 6628 (OH 12/9/2004)
...to determine child support is an abuse of discretion when that party owns a business or an interest therein. Bowen v. Thomas (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 196, 201, 656 N.E.2d 1328, 1331. {¶ 52} Therefore, we find that the GAL did not fulfill its duty to investigate the financial circumstances an......
-
In re Jennifer Lane Bicknell Et Al., Case
... ... R ... (1988), 129 Ohio App.3d 290;; In re Budenz ... (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 359; In re Crisafi (1995), ... 104 Ohio App.3d 577; Bowen v. Thomas (1995), 102 ... Ohio App.3d 196. Appellants' petitions request that the ... court change their own names as adults. The petitions were ... ...
-
Zeefe v. Zeefe
...One Stop or Roger's car, country club membership, numerous meals, and trips--all paid for by One Stop. See Bowen v. Thomas (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 196, 201, 656 N.E.2d 1328, 1331-1332, which held that a trial court abuses its discretion in the calculation of gross income when it considers m......
-
Mary E. Zeefe v. Roger S. Zeefe
... ... membership, numerous meals, and trips--all paid for by One ... Stop. See, Bowen v. Thomas (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d ... 196, 201, which held that a trial court abuses its discretion ... in the calculation of gross ... ...