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.

Temple v. Temple

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking

July 15, 2019

MARK T. TEMPLE Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TERESA L. TEMPLE Defendant-Appellee

          Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. DA2018-0025

          For Plaintiff-Appellant ROSE M. FOX

          For Defendant-Appellee SUSAN CULTICE BROWN

          JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          WISE, EARLE, J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Mark T. Temple, appeals the November 21, 2018 divorce decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division. Defendant-Appellee is Teresa L. Temple.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On March 10, 2012, appellant and appellee were married. Appellant filed a complaint for divorce on January 11, 2018. Appellee filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce on January 22, 2018. A final hearing was held on September 25, 2018. By judgment entry filed October 24, 2018, the trial court found the parties to be incompatible, separated the parties' marital property which included appellant's 401(k), and ordered appellant to pay appellee spousal support in the amount of $750.00 per month for forty-eight months. The trial court filed a final divorce decree on November 21, 2018, {¶ 3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

         I

         {¶ 4} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPUTATION OF WIFE'S SPOUSAL SUPPORT, AS THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT FOR WIFE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AND CONTRARY TO LAW."

         II

         {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AS IT RELATES TO ITS DIVISION OF APPELLANT'S 401K, AS THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT DUE TO WIFE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONTRARY TO LAW."

         I

         {¶ 6} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in its computation of spousal support. Appellant claims the amount and duration is an abuse of discretion, against the manifest weight of the evidence, and contrary to law. We disagree.

         {¶ 7} We review a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard. Snyder v. Synder, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00219, 2009-Ohio-5292. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

         {¶ 8} We will not reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence if it is supported by some competent, credible evidence. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St .3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517. In weighing the evidence, however, we are always mindful ...


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.