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.

Lorson v. Lorson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

November 15, 2017

PAUL LORSON Appellant
v.
DEBRA LORSON Appellee

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2016-03-0957

          CHRIS G. MANOS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          JOHN ZALIC, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JENNIFER HENSAL, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         {¶1} Paul Lorson appeals a decree of divorce entered by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Paul and Debra Lorson married in 2012 and divorced in 2017. During their divorce proceedings, the Lorsons agreed on the division of most of their property, but they proceeded to trial on a couple of issues, including spousal support. Following the trial, the court entered a decree that included a requirement that Husband pay Wife $583.00 a month for 13 months in spousal support.[1] Husband has appealed, assigning two errors that he has argued together.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

         THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING SPOUSAL SUPPORT TO THE APPELLEE FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTEEN (13) MONTHS.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

         THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT PERIOD PAID BY THE APPELLANT IN CONSIDERING THE PERIOD OF CONTINUED SPOUSAL SUPPORT.

         {¶3} Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to pay spousal support for 13 months. He argues that the court should have credited him for the 11 months of temporary spousal support that he had already paid. He also argues that the duration of the support is too long considering that he only resided with Wife for 23 months of the marriage.

         {¶4} Revised Code Section 3105.18(B) provides that, "[i]n divorce and legal separation proceedings, * * * the court of common pleas may award reasonable spousal support to either party." In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and reasonable, the court must consider the factors listed in Section 3105.18(C)(1)(a-n). R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). "This Court reviews a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard." Hirt v. Hirt, 9th Dist. Medina No. 03CA0110-M, 2004-Ohio-4318, ΒΆ 8. "An abuse of discretion implies that the court's decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or ...


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.