Gullia v. Gullia
Decision Date | 16 March 1994 |
Docket Number | Nos. 60498,60335 and 61704,s. 60498 |
Parties | GULLIA, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. GULLIA, Appellee and Cross-Appellant; Stauffer, Cross-Appellant. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Fadle & Beyer, William D. Beyer, Steven D. Jones, and Roger L. Kleinman, Cleveland, for appellant Theodore A. Gullia, Jr.
Joseph G. Stafford, Cleveland, for appellee Marietta D. Gullia.
Plaintiff-appellant, Theodore A. Gullia, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which granted the parties a divorce. Appellant is contesting the trial court's division of marital property, award of alimony to the appellee, an award of attorney fees ordered to be paid by the appellant, a post-decree restraining order prohibiting appellant from transferring or encumbering certain property identified in the divorce decree, and a post-decree contempt order.
Defendant-appellee Marietta D. Gullia has filed a cross-appeal of the trial court's decision limiting her attorney fees award to $25,000. Appellee had been seeking in excess of $80,000 in attorney fees.
New-party defendant, cross-appellant Patricia A. Stauffer, appeals the trial court's decision which divested her of title to property designated in the divorce decree as the "Shaw Avenue property" and the "Westhaven property."
Appellant and appellee were married on October 9, 1957. Five children were born as issue of the marriage, all of whom were emancipated at the time of trial. The record reveals that the appellant is an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio and a licensed pilot with connections in the aviation industry. During the majority of the marriage, appellee was primarily a homemaker. Toward the end of the marriage, appellee developed a business as a party planner.
In January 1984, appellant and appellee separated. At some point after the separation, appellant moved in with cross-appellant Patricia Stauffer. Stauffer had been employed by appellant as a legal secretary since 1977. During the course of their relationship, which can be characterized as both personal and professional, appellant and Stauffer became involved in numerous business dealings, including the acquisition of various properties. Two such properties, the Shaw Avenue property and the Westhaven property, form the basis of Stauffer's appeal. During this time period, appellant filed for bankruptcy relief from which he was discharged on September 6, 1984.
On July 16, 1987, appellant filed a complaint for divorce. Trial in the lower court began on April 4, 1990 and continued throughout that spring for thirty-three days. On July 20, 1990, the trial court issued its judgment entry, which provided in part:
The appellant's first assignment of error provides:
"The trial court committed reversible error in issuing a lifetime alimony award without issuing findings regarding the parties' relative earning capacities and other statutory factors."
Appellant argues that the trial court failed to analyze the relevant factors set forth in R.C. 3105.18(B) in awarding appellee sustenance alimony of $30,000 per year for the rest of her life until such time as she dies or remarries. R.C. 3105.18(B) provides:
It is appellant's position that the trial court failed to adequately determine the relative earning capacity of the parties, neglected to make definite findings as to the relative assets and liabilities of the parties, and neglected to find the value of appellant's expectancy from his mother's estate.
This assignment of error is well taken.
The Ohio Supreme Court held in Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 518 N.E.2d 1197, paragraph two of the syllabus:
"In allocating property between the parties to a divorce and in making an award of sustenance alimony, the trial court must indicate the basis for its award in sufficient detail to enable a reviewing court to determine that the award is fair, equitable and in accordance with law." (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, the Kaechele court stated:
"In making a sustenance alimony award, the trial court must consider all the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(B) and not base its determination upon any one of those factors taken in isolation." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.
Therefore, the trial court must indicate the basis for its award in sufficient detail so the reviewing court can determine that the award is fair, equitable and in accordance with law.
A review of the trial court's judgment entry dated July 20, 1990 shows that the trial court did not adequately set forth the basis for its award of sustenance alimony in the amount of $30,000 per year for life until appellee remarries or dies. Accordingly, we remand the cause to the trial court for more specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The appellant's second assignment of error provides:
"The trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in granting wife lifetime alimony without reserving jurisdiction to modify such award."
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify an indefinite award of alimony. For the following reasons, appellant's second assignment of error is well taken.
Prior to the amendment of R.C. 3105.18 in 1986, a trial court's continuing jurisdiction to modify an indefinite sustenance alimony award was implied in the parties' divorce decree. Wolfe v. Wolfe (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 399, 75 O.O.2d 474, 350 N.E.2d 413. In 1986, the Ohio General Assembly amended R.C. 3105.18, requiring the domestic relations court to specifically reserve jurisdiction in order to subsequently modify a sustenance alimony award. R.C. 3105.18(D)(1). Since the 1986 amendment, it has been held that a trial court abuses its discretion by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify an indefinite award of alimony. Nori v. Nori (1989), 58 Ohio App.3d 69, 568 N.E.2d 730; Shannon v. Shannon (Jan. 28, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 61714, unreported, 1993 WL 19572.
Consistent with the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify an indefinite award of sustenance alimony in the instant case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deborah B. Archer v. Harry Lee Archer
... ... discretion by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify an ... indefinite award of alimony. Gullia v. Gullia ... (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 653, 639 N.E.2d 822; Nori v ... Nori (1989), 58 Ohio App.3d 69, 568 N.E.2d 730; ... ...
-
Boggs v. Boggs, 2008 Ohio 1411 (Ohio App. 3/26/2008)
...Berish v Berish (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 318, 432 N.E.2d 183. For example, the basis for a de facto termination date was established in Gullia v. Gullia, where one party left the marital home, the parties maintained separate bank accounts and business activities, the parties were separated fo......
-
Neel v. Neel
...valuation, a trial court is vested with discretion to apply a date other than the actual date of divorce. Gullia v. Gullia (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 653, 666, 639 N.E.2d 822, 829-830. With regard to the issue of the $16,000 that was received from appellee's mother for the purchase of the marit......
-
Tincher v. Tincher
...more than ten years by the final hearing. The appeals court discussed prior cases at some length, among them Gullia v. Gullia, 93 Ohio App.3d 653, 639 N.E.2d 822 (8th Dist.1994) (three years separation before the final hearing); Rogers v. Rogers, 10th Dist. Nos. 96APF10-1333 and 96APF01-67 ......