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.

Colvin v. Colvin

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Guernsey

May 31, 2019

BREANNA COLVIN Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSHUA COLVIN Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 17-DR-000643

          For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE L. CHURCH

          For Defendant-Appellant: BRETT H. HILLYER

          Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          Delaney, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Joshua Colvin appeals the May 7, 2018 Decree of Divorce and August 23, 2018 judgment entry denying his objections to the magistrate's decision of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2} Plaintiff-Appellee Breanna Colvin and Defendant-Appellant Joshua Colvin were married on June 30, 2012. One child was born as issue of the marriage on October 9, 2014.

         {¶3} Wife filed a complaint for divorce on November 20, 2017. On November 20, 2017, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $2, 500.00 in attorney fees. The trial court further ordered Husband to make the car payments on Wife's Ford Explorer.

         {¶4} A trial was held on May 1, 2018. The following evidence was adduced at the trial.

         {¶5} Husband and Wife did not own any real estate. The parties resided in a home owned by Husband's family and did not pay rent. After the parties separated, Husband remained in the marital residence and Wife moved in with her parents.

         {¶6} During the marriage, the parties purchased two automobiles: (1) a 2013 Ford Explorer valued at $18, 000 with a loan balance of $23, 478.87 as of April 19, 2018 and (2) a 2017 Ford Raptor truck valued at $60, 000 with a loan balance of $73, 000. The vehicles were titled in Husband's name. The monthly payment on the Ford Explorer was $550.00. The monthly payment on the Ford Raptor was $1, 300.00. Pursuant to the temporary orders, Husband was ordered to maintain payments on the Ford Explorer. At trial, Wife requested the trial court order Husband to maintain payments on the Ford Explorer in lieu of spousal support.

         {¶7} At the time of the trial, Wife was employed at Genesis as a modality assistant in the radiology department. Wife earned $13.13 per hour and her total gross income was $27, 310.40. Wife did not consistently work outside of the home during the marriage.

         {¶8} At the time of the trial, Husband worked for Stingray Pressure Pumping. Husband previously worked for Telling Industries earning approximately $25, 000 and Peta Industries earning $4, 000.00. Husband initially earned $19.08 per hour at Stingray and received a raise in November 2017, increasing his wage to $25.18 per hour. He earned $60.00 per day as per diem and overtime wages. In 2017, Husband's total income reported on his W-2 was $81, 841.30. His gross income for 2017 was $93, 450.30.

         {¶9} Husband admitted at trial that he did not make the payment of $2, 500.00 for Wife's attorney fees as ordered by the trial court on November 20, 2017.

         {¶10} The magistrate issued her decision on May 7, 2018. The magistrate's decision named Wife as the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child. Wife was awarded the Ford Explorer free and clear of any interest of Husband, but Husband was ordered to pay the loan on the vehicle for 24 months or until paid in full, whichever came first. Husband was further ordered to pay Wife $2, 500.00 as and for her attorney fees, as the trial court had previously ordered.

         {¶11} The Final Decree of Divorce was filed on May 7, 2018.

         {¶12} On May 11, 2018, Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision. He argued the trial court erred in ordering Husband to make the car payments on the Ford Explorer for Wife because it was spousal support. Husband contended it was inequitable to consider his current income because his salary increased shortly before Wife filed her complaint for divorce. Husband further argued it was error to order spousal support in a marriage of such short duration. Husband filed supplemental objections to the magistrate's decision on August 10, 2018, again contending it was error to use Husband's current income. He next argued the trial court should have ordered a deviation in his child support obligation because Wife and Husband had nearly 50/50 parenting time.

         {¶13} On August 23, 2018, the trial court overruled Husband's objections to the magistrate's decision.

         {¶14} It is from these judgments Husband now appeals.

         ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         {¶15} Husband raises four Assignments of Error:

         {¶16} "I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN AWARDING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2, 500.

         {¶17} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN AWARDING THE PLAINTIFF 24 MONTHS OF PAYMENTS (AS SPOUSAL SUPPORT) TOWARDS HER 2013 FORD EXPLORER, AS WELL AS NOT CREDITING THE PLAINTIFF SEVERAL MONTHS OF PAYMENTS HE MADE ON THE VEHICLE FOR TEMPORARY SUPPORT.

         {¶18} "III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN AWARDING PLAINTIFF SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF PAYMENTS WHILE USING INCOME FIGURES FOR DEFENDANT HUSBAND THAT INCLUDED A ...


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.