[Cite as Williams v. Grayson, 2024-Ohio-247.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
DINITA WILLIAMS, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 112575 v. :
KEVIN GRAYSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 25, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-22-388975
Appearances:
The Wiltshire Law Firm, LLC, and Cheryl M. Wiltshire, for appellee,
Allen C. Hufford, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
Kevin Grayson appeals the imposition of a monthly spousal support
of $3,000 in the final decree of divorce. Grayson claims that award inverted the
income disparity between himself and Dinita Williams. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the domestic relations court and remand for a renewed
determination of the amount of spousal support necessary to equalize the parties’
income disparity for the 72-month duration of the award.
Grayson and Williams were married in 2000 and were in their 50s at
the time of the divorce in 2023. As is relevant to the sole issue in this appeal, the
parties stipulated that Grayson earns approximately $110,000 annually through his
full-time work as a police officer for Cuyahoga County Community College and his
regular, part-time employment as security at Cleveland Heights and University
Heights library. Grayson also started lawn care and security businesses but had no
discernable income from either source as of the trial. Also according to their
stipulation, Williams earns approximately $78,000 as a social worker for Cuyahoga
County Children and Family Services. Although Williams worked part time in 2019,
she has not worked a second job since. Williams was awarded $3,000 per month in
spousal support for a term of 72 months. The sole reason provided for that award
and the term was the “Income of the parties and Duration of the Marriage.”
The parties’ retirement assets were divided equally, and their
individual debts for rent and vehicles remained their respective obligations. The
only other asset was the marital home, which went into foreclosure. The domestic
relations court held Grayson responsible for any deficiency following the foreclosure
sale because he “had received a substantial sum as an inheritance from a former
coworker and while that money was available, he chose not to use said funds to pay
the mortgage at the marital home.” Grayson inherited approximately $94,000. Those funds were deposited and remained in a separate account, but neither party
in this appeal elaborated as to what amount, if any, remained at the time of the
divorce.
In this appeal, Grayson claims that the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing a monthly spousal support obligation of $3,000 because that
$36,000 annual obligation inverted the parties’ income disparity. Before the
spousal support award, Williams annually earned approximately $78,000, as
contrasted to Grayson’s gross earnings of $110,000. Williams would gross
$114,000, in consideration of the transfer of wealth through the support obligation,
and Grayson’s gross annual income after paying that support obligation will be
$74,000. The $3,000 monthly support obligation upends the income disparity the
spousal support award was meant to rectify.
A trial court has broad discretion in awarding spousal support, but
that discretion is not absolute. Williams v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 103975, 2016-Ohio-7487, ¶ 9, citing Gordon v. Gordon, 11th Dist. Trumbull
No. 2004-T-0153, 2006-Ohio-51, ¶ 13. “In determining whether to grant spousal
support and in determining the amount and duration of the payments, the trial court
must consider the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18.” Id., citing Deacon v. Deacon, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91609, 2009-Ohio-2491, ¶ 57. R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a)-(n)
establishes the factors courts must consider in determining whether spousal support
should be awarded and, if so, the amount of the award. A.A.O. v. A.M.O., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 110338 and 110349, 2022-Ohio-2767, ¶ 18-19. The parties’ respective incomes and the duration of the marriage are factors to be considered.
R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a) and (e). Thus, the domestic relations court’s stated rationale
adhered to the statutory criteria.
Notwithstanding, “[t]he goal of spousal support is to reach an
equitable result.” Hloska v. Hloska, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101690, 2015-Ohio-
2153, ¶ 11, citing Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (1988).
“[T]here is no set mathematical formula * * *.” Id., citing Kaechele. “If the record
reflects that the trial court considered the statutory factors, and if the judgment
contains details sufficient for a reviewing court to determine that the support award
is fair, equitable, and in accordance with the law, the reviewing court will uphold the
award.” Chattree v. Chattree, 2014-Ohio-489, 8 N.E.3d 390, ¶ 71 (8th Dist.), citing
Daniels v. Daniels, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-709, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 772,
9 (Mar. 4, 2008), and Schoren v. Schoren, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-04-019, 2005-
Ohio-2102, ¶ 11.
The parties’ assets were divided equally, except for each one’s
separate property. The $3,000 monthly obligation is neither explained nor
supported by the parties’ respective incomes. Importantly, Grayson concedes that
an award of spousal support is generally justified in light of their income disparity
at the time of the divorce. And further, he does not contest the duration of the award,
which is generally based on the length of the marriage. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 110214, 110245, and 110274, 2022-Ohio-299, ¶ 42; La Spisa v.
La Spisa, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111810, 2023-Ohio-3467, ¶ 107. His sole argument pertains to the monthly amount needed to equalize that disparity. According to
Grayson, $3,000 inverts the relative gross earnings as between the parties.
On its face, we agree that the judgment does not contain sufficient
details to conclude that the support award is fair, equitable, and in accordance with
the law. The spousal support award in this case exceeds that which is necessary to
equalize the parties’ income disparity. In Momotaz v. Sattar, 2022-Ohio-2676, 193
N.E.3d 1144 (8th Dist.), for example, the parties produced evidence of an
approximate $110,000 disparity between their respective incomes. Id. at ¶ 39. The
court imposed a monthly spousal support obligation of $2,800 for 64 months on the
husband based on his income and the overall equal distribution of other assets. Id.
at ¶ 38-40. The panel affirmed that lesser obligation as being equitable despite the
larger disparity. Likewise, in Smith at ¶ 36-37, the panel concluded that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $1,500 per month in spousal support
for 108 months considering the husband’s “phantom income” of $768,ooo annually
as contrasted to the wife’s $57,000 yearly income. Id. Husband’s actual annual
income was closer to $155,000, demonstrating a $98,000 earned income disparity
between the husband and wife. Id. at ¶ 4.
In this case, the $3,000 spousal support award based on the $32,000
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Williams v. Grayson, 2024-Ohio-247.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
DINITA WILLIAMS, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 112575 v. :
KEVIN GRAYSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 25, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-22-388975
Appearances:
The Wiltshire Law Firm, LLC, and Cheryl M. Wiltshire, for appellee,
Allen C. Hufford, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
Kevin Grayson appeals the imposition of a monthly spousal support
of $3,000 in the final decree of divorce. Grayson claims that award inverted the
income disparity between himself and Dinita Williams. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the domestic relations court and remand for a renewed
determination of the amount of spousal support necessary to equalize the parties’
income disparity for the 72-month duration of the award.
Grayson and Williams were married in 2000 and were in their 50s at
the time of the divorce in 2023. As is relevant to the sole issue in this appeal, the
parties stipulated that Grayson earns approximately $110,000 annually through his
full-time work as a police officer for Cuyahoga County Community College and his
regular, part-time employment as security at Cleveland Heights and University
Heights library. Grayson also started lawn care and security businesses but had no
discernable income from either source as of the trial. Also according to their
stipulation, Williams earns approximately $78,000 as a social worker for Cuyahoga
County Children and Family Services. Although Williams worked part time in 2019,
she has not worked a second job since. Williams was awarded $3,000 per month in
spousal support for a term of 72 months. The sole reason provided for that award
and the term was the “Income of the parties and Duration of the Marriage.”
The parties’ retirement assets were divided equally, and their
individual debts for rent and vehicles remained their respective obligations. The
only other asset was the marital home, which went into foreclosure. The domestic
relations court held Grayson responsible for any deficiency following the foreclosure
sale because he “had received a substantial sum as an inheritance from a former
coworker and while that money was available, he chose not to use said funds to pay
the mortgage at the marital home.” Grayson inherited approximately $94,000. Those funds were deposited and remained in a separate account, but neither party
in this appeal elaborated as to what amount, if any, remained at the time of the
divorce.
In this appeal, Grayson claims that the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing a monthly spousal support obligation of $3,000 because that
$36,000 annual obligation inverted the parties’ income disparity. Before the
spousal support award, Williams annually earned approximately $78,000, as
contrasted to Grayson’s gross earnings of $110,000. Williams would gross
$114,000, in consideration of the transfer of wealth through the support obligation,
and Grayson’s gross annual income after paying that support obligation will be
$74,000. The $3,000 monthly support obligation upends the income disparity the
spousal support award was meant to rectify.
A trial court has broad discretion in awarding spousal support, but
that discretion is not absolute. Williams v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 103975, 2016-Ohio-7487, ¶ 9, citing Gordon v. Gordon, 11th Dist. Trumbull
No. 2004-T-0153, 2006-Ohio-51, ¶ 13. “In determining whether to grant spousal
support and in determining the amount and duration of the payments, the trial court
must consider the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18.” Id., citing Deacon v. Deacon, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91609, 2009-Ohio-2491, ¶ 57. R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a)-(n)
establishes the factors courts must consider in determining whether spousal support
should be awarded and, if so, the amount of the award. A.A.O. v. A.M.O., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 110338 and 110349, 2022-Ohio-2767, ¶ 18-19. The parties’ respective incomes and the duration of the marriage are factors to be considered.
R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a) and (e). Thus, the domestic relations court’s stated rationale
adhered to the statutory criteria.
Notwithstanding, “[t]he goal of spousal support is to reach an
equitable result.” Hloska v. Hloska, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101690, 2015-Ohio-
2153, ¶ 11, citing Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (1988).
“[T]here is no set mathematical formula * * *.” Id., citing Kaechele. “If the record
reflects that the trial court considered the statutory factors, and if the judgment
contains details sufficient for a reviewing court to determine that the support award
is fair, equitable, and in accordance with the law, the reviewing court will uphold the
award.” Chattree v. Chattree, 2014-Ohio-489, 8 N.E.3d 390, ¶ 71 (8th Dist.), citing
Daniels v. Daniels, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-709, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 772,
9 (Mar. 4, 2008), and Schoren v. Schoren, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-04-019, 2005-
Ohio-2102, ¶ 11.
The parties’ assets were divided equally, except for each one’s
separate property. The $3,000 monthly obligation is neither explained nor
supported by the parties’ respective incomes. Importantly, Grayson concedes that
an award of spousal support is generally justified in light of their income disparity
at the time of the divorce. And further, he does not contest the duration of the award,
which is generally based on the length of the marriage. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 110214, 110245, and 110274, 2022-Ohio-299, ¶ 42; La Spisa v.
La Spisa, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111810, 2023-Ohio-3467, ¶ 107. His sole argument pertains to the monthly amount needed to equalize that disparity. According to
Grayson, $3,000 inverts the relative gross earnings as between the parties.
On its face, we agree that the judgment does not contain sufficient
details to conclude that the support award is fair, equitable, and in accordance with
the law. The spousal support award in this case exceeds that which is necessary to
equalize the parties’ income disparity. In Momotaz v. Sattar, 2022-Ohio-2676, 193
N.E.3d 1144 (8th Dist.), for example, the parties produced evidence of an
approximate $110,000 disparity between their respective incomes. Id. at ¶ 39. The
court imposed a monthly spousal support obligation of $2,800 for 64 months on the
husband based on his income and the overall equal distribution of other assets. Id.
at ¶ 38-40. The panel affirmed that lesser obligation as being equitable despite the
larger disparity. Likewise, in Smith at ¶ 36-37, the panel concluded that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $1,500 per month in spousal support
for 108 months considering the husband’s “phantom income” of $768,ooo annually
as contrasted to the wife’s $57,000 yearly income. Id. Husband’s actual annual
income was closer to $155,000, demonstrating a $98,000 earned income disparity
between the husband and wife. Id. at ¶ 4.
In this case, the $3,000 spousal support award based on the $32,000
annual income difference between the parties is facially inequitable. It does not
equalize the income as between both parties. It actually exacerbates it in favor of
Williams. Williams advances two arguments in support of the $3,000 monthly
obligation. She first contends that Grayson failed to timely provide his financial
information to the court for the purpose of considering the appropriate amount of
spousal support. The record demonstrates that the parties stipulated to their
respective incomes, so any delays in producing the information during the discovery
process was not prejudicial to Williams at trial. Further, discovery violations are not
included as a statutory basis to justify a spousal support award under
R.C. 3105.18(C)(1).
Williams also claims that Grayson failed to disclose his approximate
$94,000 inheritance that he had deposited and maintained in a separate account
during their marriage. The domestic relations court, however, expressly determined
that the spousal support award was based on the relative incomes of each party.
There is no evidence of any income being earned on the principal account balance
traced to the inheritance proceeds. Even assuming the disproportionate spousal
support award included consideration of the separate property, our conclusion
would be the same. A $3,000 monthly support obligation would deplete the entire
principal of the inheritance in a couple of years and would likewise be deemed
inequitable on its face. More to the point, however, the inheritance factored into the
decision to declare Grayson responsible for any deficiency judgments pertaining to
the foreclosure initiated on the marital home. We therefore cannot consider
whether the principal balance of the account associated with the inheritance proceeds would be an appropriate consideration to support the spousal support
award.1
The spousal support award of $3,000 per month is vacated as being
inequitable on its face because it inverted the parties’ income disparity. The matter
is remanded solely for the purpose of calculating an equitable award that will
equalize the parties’ income disparity for the 72-month duration, which was not
challenged in this appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court, domestic relations division, to carry this judgment into
execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., CONCURS; MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY
1 Williams’s final argument suggests that Grayson has not reached his full earning
potential because he only works two jobs and he could work three or four. Not only is that argument not supported by case authority as required under App.R. 16(A)(7), but it cuts both ways. Just as much as Grayson could always take on more jobs, so too could Williams.