Forbes v. Forbes
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Forbes v. Forbes, 2002-Ohio-7306.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY Ronald E. Forbes 023 Court of Appeals No. WD-02- Appellant Trial Court No. 98-DR-028 v. Dorothy A. Forbes DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Appellee Decided: December 30, 2002 * * * * * Keithly B. Sparrow, for appellant. Nicholas W. Hetzer, for appellee. * * * * * GLASSER, J. {¶1} This is an appeal from an order of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas modifying spousal support. {¶2} When appellant, Ronald E. Forbes, and appellee, Dorothy received A. an Forbes, were approximately marital estate. divorced equal in share August of 1999, their each $600,000 Appellee was awarded the parties' marital home and a portion of appellant's pension and retirement savings plans. Appellant was ordered to pay appellee $2,000 per month spousal support. The court retained jurisdiction to modify spousal support on a change of circumstances. {¶3} Appellant retired in October 1999, and moved for a modification of spousal support due to his change in circumstances. Prior to a hearing on appellant's motion, appellee a filed motion to show cause, alleging that appellant had paid virtually none of the spousal support previously awarded. These issues were joined in a December 2000 magistrate's hearing, following which the magistrate reduced appellant's monthly spousal support obligation to $1,100 and found him in contempt of the court's prior order. In an appeal of the magistrate's order to the court, the order was affirmed and adopted in its entirety. From that judgment, appellant now brings this appeal, setting forth the following single assignment of error: {¶4} "I. THE COURT ERRED IN ITS MODIFICATION OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT AS IT BASED ITS DECISION ON A STANDARD NOT CONSIDERED IN SECTION 3105.18, OHIO REVISED CODE." {¶5} The authority of a domestic relations court to award or modify spousal support has always been statutorily derived. Wolfe v. Wolfe (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 399, 414. Nevertheless, once the statutory considerations are satisfied, the resulting determination of a support award rests in the sound discretion of the court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 131. Holcomb v. Holcomb An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or a lapse of judgment, the term implies that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. {¶6} The domestic statute relations which court to provides determine direction the amount for a of an initial or modified spousal support award is R.C. 3105.18. In material part, the statute provides: {¶7} "(C)(1) In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, support, and terms which is of payment, payable and duration either in of gross spousal or in installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors: {¶8} "(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not limited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 [3105.17.1] of the Revised Code; {¶9} "(b) The relative earning abilities of the mental, and parties; {¶10}"(c) The ages and the physical, emotional conditions of the parties; {¶11}"(d) The retirement benefits of the parties; {¶12}"(e) The duration of the marriage; {¶13}"(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; {¶14}"(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; {¶15}"(h) The relative extent of education of the parties; {¶16}"(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but payments by the parties; not limited to any court-ordered The {¶17}"(j) contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning ability of the other party, including, but not limited to, any party's contribution to the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party; {¶18}"(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal training, or job qualified to obtain support experience so to that appropriate acquire the education, spouse employment, will provided be the education, training, or job experience, and employment is, in fact, sought; {¶19}"(l) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal support; {¶20}"(m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted from that party's marital responsibilities; {¶21}"(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable." {¶22}In relations this matter, magistrate the conducted trial a court's hearing on domestic appellant's modification motion and appellee's show cause motion. magistrate found both motions well-taken. The In fashioning his order on the motions, the magistrate specifically states that he considered the length of the marriage, the age of the parties and, "*** all other relevant factors of Ohio Revised Code 3105.18." {¶23}Implied in the magistrate's decision, presumably under the "other factors" provisions found in R.C. 1505.18(C)(1)(n), is great reliance on his finding that, from the time of the original decree, appellant, "*** failed without justification to pay virtually all of the spousal support awarded magistrate invade ***." concluded, the The was principal of result that her of this appellee original was failure, the required property award to to satisfy the shortfall. In the end, the magistrate reduced appellant's support spousal obligation to $1,100, substantially more than appellant had anticipated. appealed {¶24}Appellant the magistrates findings of fact and conclusions to the trial court which adopted the decision as its own. {¶25}We matter and have carefully conclude that reviewed there was the record competent, evidence to support the magistrate's findings. of this credible C.E. Morris v. Foley Const. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, Syllabus. is also clear from the court's 31505.18 factors were considered. decision that the It R.C. Moreover, we cannot say, given the court's findings and conclusions, that the support modification which was entered was arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable. Blakemore, supra. {¶26}Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is found not well-taken. {¶27}Upon consideration whereof, the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98. Peter M. Handwork, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Richard W. Knepper, J. ____________________________ George M. Glasser, J. CONCUR. JUDGE ____________________________ JUDGE Judge George M. Glasser, retired, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
