Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nguyen v. Coy

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

June 7, 2017

LIEN NGUYEN Appellant
v.
MICHAEL COY Appellee

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2014-09-2667

          RANDAL A. LOWRY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          KENNETH L. GIBSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          LESLIE S. GRASKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          THOMAS A. TEODOSIO JUDGE.

         {¶1} Appellant, Lien Nguyen, appeals from the decree of divorce entered by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division that found spousal support was not appropriate and reasonable. We reverse and remand.

         I.

         {¶2} In May 2016, a trial was conducted as to the divorce of Ms. Lien Nguyen and Mr. Michael Coy. On June 29, 2016, the trial court entered its decree of divorce, granting a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility, and finding that spousal support was not appropriate and reasonable. Ms. Nguyen now appeals, raising one assignment of error.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

         THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THAT SPOUSAL SUPPORT WAS NOT REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE.

         {¶3} Ms. Nguyen argues the trial court abused its discretion in determining that spousal support was not reasonable and appropriate. We agree. We note that Ms. Nguyen presents us with two separate arguments as to why the trial courts determination was an abuse of discretion: first, that the court erred in its application of law as to the relative income of the parties, and second, that the court erred in determining the actual income of the parties. Because we conclude the trial court abused its discretion with regard to the first issue, we decline to address Ms. Nguyen's second line of argument.

         {¶4} A trial court's award of spousal support is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Organ v. Organ, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26904, 2014-Ohio-3474, ¶ 6. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying this standard, a reviewing court is precluded from simply substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993).

         {¶5} "In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and reasonable, " the court shall consider the factors listed in Section 3105.18(C)(1)(a-n). R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). One of the factors that a court must consider in determining spousal support is the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.