[Cite as Ransdell v. Ransdell, 2014-Ohio-3001.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
WANDA RANSDELL :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25831
v. : T.C. NO. 09DR551
DONALD L. RANSDELL : (Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations) Defendant-Appellant :
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 3rd day of July , 2014.
WANDA RANSDELL, 747 Weinland Drive, New Carlisle, Ohio 45344 Plaintiff-Appellee
CHARLES D. LOWE, Atty. Reg. No. 0033209, 8087 Washington Village Drive, Suite 102, Dayton, Ohio 45458 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Donald L. Ransdell,
filed July 18, 2013. Donald appeals from the June 21, 2013 Decision and Judgment of the
Domestic Relations Court, issued following Donald’s divorce from Wanda Ransdell, that
overruled in part, and sustained in part, Donald’s objections to the Magistrate’s Decision and 2
denied the motion of Wanda Ransdell for contempt based upon Donald’s failure to refinance the
parties’ marital residence; denied Wanda’s motion for attorney fees and court costs; and granted
Wanda’s motion for modification of spousal support. We note that Wanda did not file a brief
herein.
{¶ 2} The record reflects that Wanda filed a Complaint for Divorce on May 20, 2009,
in which she alleged that the parties were married on September 7, 1988 in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and that no children were born as issue of the marriage. After a hearing on July 29, 2009, a
Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce was issued. The decree provides in relevant part as
follows:
* * * Furthermore, the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell, has had numerous and
lengthy discussions with plaintiff’s counsel regarding issues such as spousal
support, the continuing jurisdiction of this Court relative to the issue of spousal
support, a division of the parties[’] assets and debts and furthermore, the
plaintiff’s counsel has advised the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell, on multiple
occasions to seek the assistance of a bankruptcy lawyer to resolve any and all
questions and/or issues which she had relative to a meeting that she and the
defendant, Donald L. Ransdell participated in with attorney Keith Fricker, who
was being consulted by the defendant, Donald L. Ransdell relative to multiple
issues including the bankruptcy of several different companies as well as a
personal bankruptcy. With these issues in mind and after having had a full
opportunity to discuss these issues with an attorney of her choosing, pursuant to
the ex-husband, Attorney Steven Yuhas and various other individuals, the 3
plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell has agreed to a settlement of all issues in her divorce
action in exchange for a cash property settlement and various other considerations
confirmed in the body of this final judgment and decree of divorce. In
consideration thereof, the defendant, Donald L. Ransdell has agreed to assume any
and all debts and liabilities associated with Ransdell Trucking, Don Ransdell
Trucking, Signs-N-Tyme Company, as well as all of the parties’ personal debt.
Upon due consideration of the above mentioned items, the Court finds that
the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell * * * has carefully reflected upon and therein
decided to accept a lump sum settlement as well as various other considerations at
this time despite the concerns raised by her attorney, Steven Yuhas relative to the
authenticity of the statements made by Defendant Donald L. Ransdell relative to
his pursuit of bankruptcy, relative to his companies, as well as various other
previously discussed concerns raised by Attorney Yuhas. Nonetheless Plaintiff
Wanda Ransdell has reached a full and final settlement with Donald Ransdell
based upon their discussions and the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell is entitled to a
final judgment decree of divorce as prayed for in her pleadings.
***
1. SPOUSAL SUPPORT:
A lump sum payment of spousal support of $60,000.00, has been made to
the plaintiff by the defendant. * * * No additional payment of spousal support will
be made or has been made by Defendant Donald L. Ransdell by agreement of the
parties, and the Court shall not return (sic) jurisdiction over the issue except as 4
described in Paragraph 9, on Page 6.
4. REAL ESTATE:
The defendant, Donald L. Ransdell owns a home located at 6761
Locustview Drive, Huber Heights, Ohio 45424. The defendant Donald L.
Ransdell, shall retain all rights, title and interest in said real estate free and clear of
any claims of the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell. The defendant, Donald L. Ransdell
shall be solely responsible for the timely payment of any and all debts associated
with said real estate, including, but not limited to, any and all mortgages,
mortgage payments, promissory notes, promissory note payments, real estate
taxes, insurance, utilities and assessments, and he shall further indemnify and hold
the plaintiff harmless and blameless thereon. The defendant, Donald L. Ransdell
shall use his best efforts to refinance the existing mortgage and all notes and/or
mortgages associated with said real estate so as to remove the plaintiff, Wanda
Ransdell of any and all right as a co-obligor therein. The defendant, Donald L.
Ransdell shall complete a refinancing of said property at a date no later than six
months after the filing date of the final entry and decree of divorce, and at that
time his attorney, and/or an attorney of his choosing shall prepare a quit claim
deed, which the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell will sign relinquishing all rights, title,
and interest in said real estate to the defendant, Donald L. Ransdell. The
defendant, Donald L. Ransdell, has communicated to the plaintiff, Wanda
Ransdell he is contemplating and intends to file bankruptcy on both a business and 5
personal level, and the defendant has further intimated that he will be fully
responsible for any and all debt associated with said marital residence under all
circumstances. * * *
8. BUSINESS DEBT, PERSONAL DEBT, AND OTHER MARITAL
DEBT:
The defendant, Donald L. Ransdell is the owner of Signs-N-Tyme, * * *
Ransdell Trucking, * * * , Don Ransdell Trucking * * * as well as additional
unsecured and secured debt. The defendant, Donald L. Ransdell shall hold the
plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell harmless and blameless relative to all business debt,
corporate debt, personal debt, marital debt of the parties, be it secured and/or
unsecured debt of any kind. * * *.
[Donald’s] liabilities include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Ransdell Trucking;
2. Donald Ransdell;
3. Don Ransdell Trucking;
4. Signs-N-Tyme;
5. Donald Ransdell personal debts;
6. Various accounts with Fifth Third Bank under the following accounts:
[four account numbers are listed]
Furthermore, husband shall be fully responsible for the additional
liabilities to Bank of America in the amount of $35,000.00, to Fifth Third Bank in 6
the approximate amount of $40,000.00, to Key Bank in the approximate amount
of $27,800.00, as well as two additional unsecured debts to Capital One with a
total balance of approximately $50,000.00, in two separate accounts.
Furthermore, defendant Donald L. Ransdell shall be fully and completely
responsible for any and all debt associated with his business.
9. ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS AGREEMENTS:
The parties agree and the Court also specifically intends that the wife will
be free of all liabilities which have been allocated to the defendant and the
defendant will pay those liabilities in full, holding the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell
blameless and harmless with regard to said previously mentioned debts and also
indemnifying her if the defendant fails to honor his obligations. If, for any
reason, the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell is for any reason denied any of the promised
relief as is detailed in this agreement due to a bankruptcy being filed by the
defendant, Donald l. Ransdell, and/or any other implications of actions taken by
the defendant, Donald L. Ransdell, this Court has determined that the affect will
be to cause the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell to be in need to (sic) spousal support.
Therefore, the issue of spousal support shall be subject to continuing jurisdiction
of the Court for the sole purpose of establishment or modification of spousal
support in both amount and duration in the event that the defendant obtains relief
in bankruptcy court for any debt and/or any obligation which ultimately causes the
plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell to pay any of the above mentioned debts which would
effectively modify the property division between the parties, thus effecting the 7
need for support by the defendant to the plaintiff.
This continuing jurisdiction on the issue of spousal support as it relates to
payments of debts shall continue until such time as all marital liabilities, corporate
liabilities, personal liabilities and all of the liabilities associated with the
previously mentioned debts that the defendant, Donald L. Ransdell shall pay are
satisfied in full with no implication and/or monetary cost to the plaintiff, Wanda
Ransdell.
10. ATTORNEY FEES:
Each party shall be solely responsible for his or her own attorney fees
incurred as a result of these proceedings. Plaintiff’s counsel has recommended on
multiple occasions that the plaintiff, Wanda Ransdell seek the advice of a
bankruptcy attorney and has provided both the names of bankruptcy attorneys and
various other attorneys to the plaintiff relative to any questions that she may have
regarding the issues in this case.
{¶ 3} On May 23, 2011, Wanda filed a “Motion for Contempt and Other Relief,” in
which she asserted that Donald failed to refinance the property at 6761 Locustview Drive, and
that she “has recently been served with a Complaint in Foreclosure.” Wanda asserted that,
pursuant to the final decree, she is entitled to an order modifying her spousal support. Wanda
also sought attorney fees.
{¶ 4} On June 14, 2011, Donald filed “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Motion for Contempt.” Therein he asserted that he “filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 11-30041, and was discharged on May 26, 2011.” Donald 8
further asserted: “In order to ensure the finality of awards, the Ohio Legislature in O.R.C. §
3105.18(E) only permits a court to modify the terms of an order of spousal support when each of
the following conditions have been met: (1) there has been an order for spousal support, (2) the
court specifically retained jurisdiction in the decree, and (3) where circumstances have changed.”
Donald asserted that he was not ordered to pay any spousal support, and “regardless of whether
the court claimed to retain jurisdiction or the circumstances have changed drastically, the court
does not have jurisdiction under O.R.C. § 3105.18(E) to modify the Decree, as it relates to
spousal support.” On July 20, 2011, Donald filed a “Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Dismiss Claim for Spousal Support,” in which he asserted that since the court did not order
periodic payments of spousal support to Wanda, the court lacked jurisdiction to now establish
spousal support.
{¶ 5} On July 20, 2011, an Agreed Order was issued which reflects that a hearing was
held on the same day and that the matter was continued until August 24, 2011. On August 17,
2011, Wanda filed a “Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claim for Additional Spousal
Support Payments.” She asserted that the “court specifically retained jurisdiction over the issue
of spousal support in case a situation like the current situation arose in addition to ordering that
the Defendant Donald L. Ransdell pay $60,000.00, in spousal support * * *.” Wanda asserted
that the “circumstances have changed between the parties” due to Donald’s failure “to refinance
the marital real estate as ordered * * * which has caused the property to be foreclosed upon.”
Wanda asserted that she has been exposed to “ongoing financial difficulty, foreclosure
proceedings, additional attorney fees for both domestic relations court and civil division * * *.”
Wanda asserted that the court has jurisdiction to establish spousal support, since the court 9
ordered a lump sum of spousal support, and since the the decree includes a provision authorizing
the court to modify the amount or terms of spousal support. Finally, Wanda asserted that there
has been a change of circumstances in that “she has currently paid over $1,500.00, in additional
attorney fees defending the foreclosure. This foreclosure and any additional costs that she incurs
will undoubtedly effect her credit because the Defendant failed to act pursuant to the court order
and his agreements.” Finally, Wanda asserted that the fact that Donald “has evidently filed and
been granted a full Chapter 7 bankruptcy, thus exonerating himself from any debt associated with
the marital residence, also now frees him up to make additional and ongoing spousal support
payments * * *.”
{¶ 6} On February 7, 2012, the Magistrate issued a decision in which she noted that
counsel for Donald had withdrawn from the case and that Donald “was advised of his rights and
knowingly and voluntarily signed the Advisement of Rights and Waiver of Counsel form which
shall be filed herein.” The decision provides that Wanda “made an oral motion to withdraw her
contempt motion if [Donald] withdrew his June 14, 2011 motion.” The Magistrate dismissed
“without prejudice: (1) plaintiff’s May 23, 2011 Motion for Contempt and Other Relief and (2)
defendant’s June 14, 2011 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt.”
{¶ 7} On March 5, 2012, Wanda filed a “Motion for Contempt and Other Relief.” She
sought “reasonable attorney fees of $1,500.00 for Steven E. Yuhas for the contempt proceeding
and $4,000.00 for Brad Smith for the foreclosure litigation, as well as court costs and special
process server fees of $370.00, due to [Donald’s] failure to honor this court’s orders.” Wanda
asserted that “after a recent ‘short sale’ [she] was finally advised by the bank mortgage holder
that they would not at this time be pursuing her for the even larger unpaid balance on the note. 10
Movant’s fees were incurred due to the foreclosure litigation that Movant should never have been
a party to.” Wanda sought spousal support pursuant to Paragraph 9 of the parties’ final decree.
{¶ 8} A hearing was held on July 3, 2012 on Wanda’s motion. Initially, Attorney
Thomas Schiff testified on behalf of Wanda as to the reasonableness and appropriateness of the
billing statements submitted to her by Attorneys Steven Yuhas and Brad Smith, as well as bills
Wanda received for process serving and filing fees. Schiff testified that his fee is $250.00 for
attending the hearing.
{¶ 9} Wanda then testified that she filed for divorce in May of 2009, and that Donald
closed his trucking business shortly thereafter, but that he continued to operate his sign business.
Wanda stated that she “honestly thought [the house] would be sold”. She stated that she learned
of Donald’s bankruptcy 18 months after their divorce was final, and that up until that time, he
was making the mortgage payment. She stated that she received notice from Fifth Third Bank in
January, 2011 that the house payment was past due. Wanda stated that Donald filed for
bankruptcy in March of 2011, and that she was not involved in that process. She stated that she
bought a home in July of 2009 with the $60,000.00 she received from Donald, and that she
placed the remainder of the purchase price of the home, $27,000.00, on a credit card. She stated
that her payments remain current on her home. Wanda stated that as a consequence of the
foreclosure on the marital residence, her homeowner’s insurance has doubled and her “credit is
absolutely ruined.” Wanda identified her Progressive Insurance bill that she received in June,
2012 for $882.00 for one year; Wanda stated that in 2009, 2010 and 2011 she paid $449.00 per
year for the insurance. The bill provides that the following criteria “has the largest impact in
determining your insurance score: [o]ne mortgage account has been delinquent within the last 12 11
months.”
{¶ 10} On cross-examination, Wanda stated that at the time of the parties’ divorce,
Donald did not have the financial ability to pay his business debts, and that the $60,000.00 he
gave her came from his business. When asked if Donald could have used that money to pay his
business debts, she responded, “That’s correct.” Wanda acknowledged that at the time Donald
filed for bankruptcy, he owed more money on the marital residence than the property was worth.
She stated that she believed the home was worth $80,000.00, and that Donald owed $87,000.00.
Wanda identified, in the final decree, Donald’s enumerated business debts which totaled over
$150,000.00. Wanda stated that she has never made a payment for the marital residence after
the divorce, and she stated that the mortgage holder is not trying to collect from her “because I
hired an attorney to force him to do a short sale.”
{¶ 11} The following exchange occurred on recross-examination
Q. Prior to the divorce did you meet with a bankruptcy lawyer?
A. I went in with him, yeah to hear what he was saying. That’s correct.
Q. * * * do you remember the lawyer telling him that he should file
bankruptcy?
A. With the information that Donald gave him, yes.
Q. * * * Do you believe that information was false?
A. I believe he could have - - he could have survived.
Q. My question is, do you believe the information he gave the bankruptcy
lawyer was false or inaccurate? 12
A. Inaccurate, yes, I kind of do.
Q. And did you point that out to the bankruptcy lawyer?
A. No, sir. I sat and listened.
{¶ 12} Donald testified as on cross-examination that he appeared for the parties’
noncontested divorce hearing without an attorney. He acknowledged his agreement, as reflected
in the final decree, that the court retain jurisdiction to order additional spousal support if he failed
to meet his obligations as set forth in the final decree. Donald identified his signature on the final
decree and stated that he understood what he was signing, and that he chose not to retain an
attorney. Donald acknowledged that the final decree required him to refinance the marital
residence within six months after the final decree was filed, and he further acknowledged that he
continued to make the house payment for 18 months. Donald testified that he attempted
unsuccessfully to refinance the property.
{¶ 13} Donald stated that at the time he closed his trucking business, Don Ransdell
Trucking, he was “running” five tractors and seven trailers. Donald testified as follows
regarding his business:
I struggled all of 2009 already and most of 2008 due to the recession, due
to the fact that the reason I bought the trucks were to hall (sic) loads from Chicago
to California. There wasn’t a signed agreement. I was supposed to get three
loads a week. We didn’t get three loads a week. We didn’t get three loads a
week, any week. We were lucky to get two loads or one load, so we had to hall
(sic) freight that was paying a dollar a mile. It cost me $1.30 a mile to operate. 13
It finally caught up with me.
All the debt I had accumulated from the banks, I was trying - -when I
bought the trucks, I didn’t have the - - the equity, or the capital is the word I was
trying to say, to do that. I thought that that fuel that I had from Chicago to
Sacremento was going to be my salvation. And then fuel prices - -or oil goes to
$150 a barrel, fuel prices go to $5.00 a gallon, and the - - the tags were due and the
insurance down payment was due, and I did not have the money. That’s why I
closed the business when I did.
{¶ 14} Donald testified that the mortgage payment on the marital residence was “$840
something.” Donald stated that he tried to sell the home on line when he quit making the
payments, and that he believed it would sell. Regarding the foreclosure, he stated, “I didn’t get a
lawyer to defend it, and I didn’t pay anything out on the house and neither did [Wanda].”
Donald stated, “[Wanda] didn’t incur any costs. The fact that she ran to an attorney was her
business * * *.”
{¶ 15} On direct examination, Donald testified as follows when asked about his “state of
mind at the time you entered into the divorce”:
As I stated earlier, I had just come to the conclusion that the business I put
my blood, sweat and tears in for 30 years, I could no longer operate. So I, my
life, my world was turned upside down. My life, as I knew it was over, and I
knew that. I knew it was inevitable that I was going to have to file bankruptcy.
The only reason I didn’t file bankruptcy right away was to try to protect her. I
gave her the $60,000 in lieu of paying creditors that I well owed, and that money 14
should have went to them. And had I filed bankruptcy right away it would have
went to them. But I was trying to protect her. * * * And I even paid her cell
phone bill and her car insurance for over - - for 18 months, both of those things. I
tried my best to keep her from having to go through what I went through and was
going to have to go through. She kept her motorcycle and car. I had to - - I had
to sell mine.
{¶ 16} Donald identified as Exhibit D a “Summary of Schedules” from federal
bankruptcy court, which reflects assets of $98,430.00 and liabilities of $413,715.02. Donald
stated that the liabilities were discharged by the bankruptcy court. He testified that at the time of
the parties’ divorce, his assets and debt were substantially the same as reflected in Exhibit D. He
stated that at the time of the divorce, his trucking business was not profitable. He stated that he
still has “a sign business” which generates income of $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 a year after
expenses. Donald stated that he is unable to work because he has peripheral neuropathy in both
legs.
{¶ 17} Regarding refinancing the marital residence, Donald testified that he “called
Andy Roll who’s the officer, a finance officer at Fifth-Third Bank,” who had previously
refinanced the property. Donald stated that after he “explained to him what was going on with
the business and everything else, I mean, it was impossible, couldn’t happen.” Finally, Donald
identified as Exhibit B, his federal income tax return for 2009, which reflects that his adjusted
gross income was “-238,112,” and Exhibit C, his federal income tax return for 2010, which
reflects that his adjusted gross income was “-168,852.”
{¶ 18} Pursuant to the Magistrate’s request, Wanda filed “Plaintiff’s Post-Hearing 15
Memorandum” on October 22, 2012, in which she asked the court to “issue an equitable order”
that will allow her to pay attorney fees, court costs and filing fees in the amount of $4,807.50.
She asserted that the court “has retained jurisdiction to modify spousal support due to a change in
circumstances.”
{¶ 19} Donald also filed “Defendant’s Closing Argument” on October 22, 2012, in
which he asserted in part that the “indemnity language [in the final decree] contains no mention
of [Donald] indemnifying [Wanda] from legal fees.” Donald further asserted that “all [he] was
required to do was to ‘use his best efforts’ to refinance, which he did.” Donald asserted that his
failure to refinance, after attempting to do so, does not constitute contempt of court, since there
“was not in 2009, 2010, 2011 or presently any lending institution that would refinance an
$87,000 mortgage loan secured by a property valued at $95,400 under the circumstances that
existed in this case,” namely that his assets totaled $98,430.00 and his debts totaled $413,715,
and he suffered significant loss of income over the last three years. Donald asserted that
refinancing was “an impossibility.” According to Donald, the “only debt that [Wanda]
complains about is the mortgage debt, which went away as a result of the short sale. Hence, she
was not made to pay any portion of it. Because [Wanda] was not denied any of the promised
relief detailed in the Decree and because she has not been made to pay or become liable for any
debts discharged by [Donald], this Court should not” order Donald to pay legal fees or spousal
support. Donald asserted that the decree is clear that the parties are each responsible for their
own attorney fees.
{¶ 20} A “Magistrate Decision and Permanent Order” was issued on January 15, 2013.
Regarding Wanda’s motion for contempt, the Magistrate determined that Wanda failed to prove 16
by clear and convincing evidence that Donald violated the court’s orders as follows:
Plaintiff has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
Defendant violated this court’s orders. The Decree ordered that the Defendant use
his best efforts to refinance, and Defendant’s testimony reveals that he did in fact
attempt to refinance the House. To the extent that Defendant was unable to
refinance the House and was unable to remove Plaintiff’s name from the House,
Defendant proved inability to comply with the court’s order given the amount the
House was worth; the amount owed on the House; and Defendant’s dire financial
condition during the divorce proceedings and after. This magistrate finds that the
parties were well aware of Defendant’s financial problems at the time of the
divorce because the Decree thoroughly documents the fact that Defendant was
contemplating bankruptcy at the time of the divorce and Paragraph Nine of the
Decree even makes provisions for Plaintiff’s reimbursement in the event he filed.
{¶ 21} Regarding spousal support, the magistrate determined as follows:
Here, Plaintiff incurred a significant amount of attorney fees in both this
court and in a separate foreclosure action because Defendant failed to honor the
promises he made in the Decree. Under the Decree, Defendant was to be solely
responsible for the House. Defendant failed to make mortgage payments;
refinance the loan; and remove Plaintiff’s name from the mortgage. Defendant
filed for bankruptcy, thus absolving himself of all financial responsibility for the
mortgage. As a result, Plaintiff was left financially responsible for the mortgage.
In short, Defendant’s actions left Plaintiff holding the proverbial bag. Plaintiff 17
experienced significant financial hardship due to Defendant’s actions. For
example, she has a lower credit score than she had prior to the foreclosure; it [is]
more difficult for her to obtain employment; and she now pays higher home
insurance rates. Plaintiff’s hardship could have been even worse if she had not
hired a lawyer to represent her in the foreclosure action. With the help of the
foreclosure lawyer, a short sale was eventually negotiated on the House. This
magistrate finds that Paragraph Nine of the Decree provides a mechanism for
remedying Defendant’s failure to honor his obligations - paying additional spousal
support.
* * * This court finds that Plaintiff has proven that the award of additional
spousal support in the amount that Plaintiff expended in attorney fees and costs
was appropriate and reasonable.
* * * Scant evidence was provided on the parties’ income. However,
Defendant testified that he cannot work because he has a knee injury. He further
testified that he owns a sign business which earns between $20,000 and $30,000 a
year after expenses. Therefore, after a review of the statutory factors in R.C.
3105.18 and relevant case law, the court orders, effective the date of filing this
order, that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff monthly spousal support in the amount
of $150.00 per month until the $4,807.50 is paid in full.
{¶ 22} Donald filed objections to the magistrate’s decision on January 29, 2013,
asserting that the Magistrate’s decision requiring him to pay spousal support for Wanda’s
attorney fees is an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. According to Donald: 18
The Magistrate’s errors in this case become clear once the case is reduced
to its most simple elements. Because the Magistrate found [Donald] not to be in
contempt of court, the Magistrate should not have ordered [Donald] to pay
attorney fees that [Wanda] incurred in pursuing her motion for contempt.
Husband’s failure to comply with a Court order to indemnify [Wanda] from a
debt, which resulted in [Wanda] having to pay, is a condition precedent to an
award of spousal support in this case. Since the Magistrate found that [Donald]
did not fail to comply with a court order, and because [Wanda] did not become
liable for a debt that [Donald] was to pay, the Magistrate could not properly
invoke the bankruptcy language in order to direct [Donald] to pay [Wanda’s]
attorney fees in the form of spousal support.
{¶ 23} On February 14, 2013, Wanda filed a pro se “Response to Objection to
Magistrate Decision Support Thereof,” (sic) in which she asserted, “I believe that the
Magistrate’s Decision is correct on all levels both legally and morally as she heard all the
evidence that we both presented and was able to judge our credibility.”
{¶ 24} In its “Decision and Judgment” the trial court, determined as follows:
The Court finds that as a result of [Donald’s] inability to refinance the
mortgage on the marital residence, the mortgagee, Fifth Third Bank, sued both the
parties in foreclosure. In order to protect her interests, plaintiff hired attorney
Bradley Smith to represent her in that action. Plaintiff testified that attorney
Smith was instrumental in negotiating a short sale of the home. Through attorney
Smith’s efforts, the bank forgave both parties any deficiency resulting from the 19
short sale. * * * [Wanda] paid attorney Smith $2,807.50 for his services. * * *
The Court finds that [Wanda] has incurred financial damage due to “. . .
other implications of actions taken by defendant . . .” Final Decree Paragraph 9 at
6. The Court finds that [Wanda] is entitled to reimbursement of those damages.
The Court further finds that because the contempt action was denied, there
will be no award of attorney fees for that filing.
Under its equitable powers and consistent with the terms of paragraph 9 of
the parties’ final decree of divorce, the Court finds [Wanda] is entitled to an award
of $2,807.50 for the financial damages due to [Donald’s] bankruptcy action.
[Donald] may discharge this obligation in the form of a modification of spousal
support. [Donald] shall pay [Wanda] $150 per month until the balance of
$2,807.50 is paid in full. Defendant shall make payments through the
Montgomery County Support Enforcement Agency.
{¶ 25} Donald asserts two assignments of error herein, which we will consider together.
They are as follows:
“THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN MODIFYING SPOUSAL
SUPPORT WHEN THERE HAD BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WAS NOT REASONABLY CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME
OF THE DIVORCE,”
And,
“ THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING ATTORNEY
FEES TO WIFE.” 20
{¶ 26} R.C. 3105.18(E) provides in relevant part:
If * * * a continuing order for periodic payments of money as spousal
support is entered in a divorce or dissolution of marriage action that is determined
on or after January 1, 1991, the court that enters the decree of divorce * * * does
not have jurisdiction to modify the amount or terms of the * * * spousal support
unless the court determines that the circumstances of either party have changed
and unless one of the following applies:
(1) In the case of a divorce, the decree or a separation agreement of the
parties to the divorce that is incorporated into the decree contains a provision
specifically authorizing the court to modify the amount or terms of * * * spousal
(2) In the case of a dissolution of marriage, the separation agreement that is
approved by the court and incorporated into the decree contains a provision
specifically authorizing the court to modify the amount or terms of * * * spousal
support. (Emphasis added).
{¶ 27} We believe that Sieverding v. Sieverding, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24549,
2012-Ohio-1238, is instructive. Therein, Michael Sieverding appealed from an order of the
domestic relations court that modified his spousal support obligation as reflected in the parties’
separation agreement, which was incorporated into their decree of dissolution. Id., ¶ 1. The
separation agreement provided for monthly payments of spousal support for 12 years, and it
provided that the court retained jurisdiction over spousal support. Id., ¶ 3. In a subsequent
motion requesting an increase in the amount and duration of spousal support, Barbara Sieverding 21
alleged a change in financial circumstances. Id., ¶ 5. An Agreed Order was later filed and
approved by the court that required Michael to pay $9,000.00 as spousal support. Id., ¶ 6. The
Agreed Order further provided that the “obligation for spousal support shall terminate and the
court does not retain jurisdiction.” Id.
{¶ 28} Michael argued on appeal that the trial court lacked the authority to terminate its
continuing jurisdiction previously invoked pursuant to R.C. 3105.18(E), even by agreement of
the parties. Id., ¶ 8.
{¶ 29} This Court determined as follows:
The authorization which the separation agreement confers permitted the
court to modify Michael’s obligation to make periodic payments of spousal
support and substitute a lump sum spousal support obligation instead. The
practical effect of that modification was to exclude the possibility of any so-called
reservation of jurisdiction, because R.C. 3105.18(E) applies to an order for
“periodic payments of money as spousal support,” and therefore does not apply
to lump sum awards. R.C. 3105.18(E)(2) could not extend the court’s
jurisdiction to modify the lump-sum award in any event. The court’s apparent
intention to reject any continuing jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 3105.18 * * * to
modify its lump sum award therefore had no force and effect, and while it was an
error, the error was harmless.
Id., ¶ 15 (Emphasis added).
{¶ 30} Pursuant to Sieverding and the plain language of R.C. 3105.18(E), we conclude
that since R.C. 3105.18(E) refers to an order for “periodic payments of money as spousal 22
support,” it does not apply to lump sum awards. Since the parties’ final decree expressly
provided for a “lump sum payment of spousal support of $60,000.00,” and not “periodic
payments of money as spousal support,” Donald’s spousal support obligation was not subject to
modification, in amount or duration, pursuant to R.C. 3105.18(E).
{¶ 31} Having concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify Donald’s lump
sum spousal support obligation, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and vacated.
FAIN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Wanda Ransdell Charles D. Lowe Hon. Denise L. Cross