[Cite as Herndon v. Herndon, 2011-Ohio-888.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
RODNEY H. HERNDON : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 2010-CA-00245
WENDY L. HERNDON :
:
Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, Case No. 2007DR01366
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 22, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
DAVID S. AKE JOHN R. GIUA
101 Central Plaza South, Ste. 600 220 Market Avenue S.
Canton, OH 44702 Suite 400
Canton, OH 44702
[Cite as Herndon v. Herndon, 2011-Ohio-888.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Rodney H. Herndon appeals a judgment of the Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Stark County, Ohio, which adopted the
decision of the magistrate overruling his motion to modify the spousal support he pays
to defendant-appellee Wendy L. Herndon. Appellant assigns two errors to the trial
court:
{¶2} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REDUCING OR TERMINATING
THE APPELLANT’S SPOUSAL SUPPORT RETROACTIVE TO THE DATE
APPELLANT’S MOTION WAS FILED.
{¶3} “II. THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE APPELLEE TO
REIMBURSE THE APPELLANT FOR ONE-HALF OF THE DEFICIENCY IN THE SALE
OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE FROM THE APPELLANT’S SPOUSAL SUPPORT.”
{¶4} The record indicates the parties were divorced in December 2008. The
court ordered appellant to pay appellee’s spousal support in the amount of $2,000.00
per month for 84 months, terminating on the death of either party, remarriage of the
defendant, or her cohabitation with an unrelated male. The court also ordered the
marital residence be sold or auctioned; appellee would receive the net proceeds of the
sale after discharge of the mortgage and payment of normal selling costs.
{¶5} Appellant appealed the matter to this court, and we affirmed in Herndon v.
Herndon, Stark App. No. 2008-CA-00289, 2009-Ohio-3261. In the prior appeal, we
found the trial court’s award of spousal support was within its discretion, based as it was
on appellant’s income from his business. Herndon I, at paragraph 11. We also
reviewed the trial court’s order that appellee would receive the proceeds from the sale
Stark County, Case No. 2010-CA-00245 3
of the home. The difference between the listing price on the property and the
indebtedness on the home was $70,000.00, but we noted the actual sale could be
different. We found no error. Herndon I , at paragraph 16 through 19.
I.
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court should have
reduced his spousal support obligation. The trial court’s original award was based upon
its finding that appellant’s income was $69,000.00. At the hearing on the motion for
modification, appellant testified his income for 2008 was actually $79,000.00, but his
2009 income was approximately $3,580.00, plus approximately $21,000.00
depreciation, as evidenced by his 2009 federal income tax return. Appellant testified he
removed over $80,000.00 in assets from his company in 2009, of which he used
$18,000.00 to pay his spousal support obligations and $26,000.00 on the deficiency on
the sale of the marital residence. See II, infra.
{¶7} Appellant presented the evidence of a certified public accountant, who
stated the funds appellant removed from the company should not be considered
income. The total assets of the company had decreased by approximately $72,000.00,
while the company debt had increased about $15,000.00. The CPA stated if the
appellant continued to remove assets from the business while increasing the debt, he
would be out of business within a year.
{¶8} The magistrate found appellant had taken at least $63,000.00 from the
business and his company had directly paid $18,000.00 towards his spousal support
obligation. Appellant paid additional personal expenses through the business and the
Stark County, Case No. 2010-CA-00245 4
magistrate found appellant had benefited from at least $81,000.00 from his business.
The magistrate concluded the money drawn from the business was income to appellant.
{¶9} Our standard of reviewing the decisions of a domestic relations court is
generally the abuse of discretion standard, see Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d
142, 541 N.E. 2d 1028. The Supreme Court made the abuse of discretion standard
applicable to alimony orders in Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 450
N.E. 2d 1140. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the term abuse of discretion
implies the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. at 219. In
applying the abuse of discretion standard, this court may not substitute our judgment for
that of the trial court, Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St. 3d 619, 1993-
Ohio-122, 614 N.E. 2d 748.
{¶10} We find the trial court did not err in treating the funds drawn from the
business as income to appellant. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in
overruling the motion to modify spousal support.
{¶11} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶12} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues the funds from the sale
of the marital home were insufficient to discharge all the indebtedness, and appellant
paid the deficiency of $26,378.25 to close the sale. He moved the court to order
appellee to reimburse him for half the deficiency.
{¶13} The court awarded appellee the “net proceeds” of the sale of the residence,
but did not place a value on this award. This court affirmed the trial court’s decision in
Stark County, Case No. 2010-CA-00245 5
Herndon I. Unfortunately, there were no net proceeds of the sale so appellee received
nothing.
{¶14} The magistrate declined to order appellee to assume one-half of the cost to
discharge the mortgages, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter the division of
assets and debts. It is well settled a trial court lacks jurisdiction to make substantive
changes to a property division order, although it retains the power to clarify and
construe its original property division in order to effectuate its judgment. Jones v.
Jones, 178 Ohio App. 3d 618, 2008-Ohio-6069, 903 N.E. 2d 329.
{¶15} In the divorce decree, the court found appellant’s financial actions and
decisions had created additional indebtedness, requiring a second mortgage or line of
equity, which at the time of divorce was approximately $23,000.00. The magistrate
found particularly given that the deficiency was fairly similar to the increased
indebtedness appellant had caused, she could not order appellee to pay half the
deficiency. We agree the trial court’s final order in the divorce decree indicated appellee
was to benefit from the sale of the home, not to incur additional expenses.
{¶16} We find the trial court did not err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion
in failing to order appellee to share in the deficiency payment.
{¶17} The second assignment of error is overruled.
Stark County, Case No. 2010-CA-00245 6
{¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division, of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Farmer, J., and
Edwards, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
_________________________________
WSG:clw 0210 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
[Cite as Herndon v. Herndon, 2011-Ohio-888.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
RODNEY H. HERNDON :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
WENDY L. HERNDON :
:
:
Defendant-Appellee : CASE NO. 2010-CA-00245
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Stark County, Ohio, is
affirmed. Costs to appellant.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS