Termination of Spousal Support Based on a Change in Circumstances

Tufts v. Tufts
2010-Ohio-641
Ninth District Court of Appeals
Summit County
-Spousal Support

Defendant-Appellant, Frederick N. Tufts ("Husband") appeals from the judgement of the Summit County DR Court denying his motion to terminate/modify spousal support being paid to Plaintiff-Appellee, Sandra L. Tufts ("Wife").

The parties were married for 35 years before divorcing in March of 1995. The Decree of Divorce awarded $2,500 per month to wife with the TC retaining jurisdiction to modify the amount of spousal support based on a change in circumstances. At the time of the divorce, Husband’s base salary was 107k, with his total compensation reaching 240k annually.

In 2000 Husband’s income dropped to approximately 64k. He filed a motion to modify and his spousal support obligation dropped to $1,600 per month. In May 2008, Husband filed a motion to modify on the basis of a change in circumstances as his income had dropped to 48k annually. Following a hearing, the magistrate denied Husband’s motion. Husband objected and the TC overruled those objections and adopted the magistrate’s findings.

On appeal, Husband asserted four assignments of error. The Ninth Circuit reversed after finding the TC erred by not making the requisite findings to establish jurisdiction over Husband’s motion to terminate. The reversal was based on what constitutes a "change in circumstances" under the recently decided Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum.

From the Opinion:

{¶8} It is well established that R.C. 3105.18 requires a two-step analysis before an award of spousal support may be modified. Malizia v. Malizia, 9th Dist. No. 22565, 2005-Ohio-5186, at ¶8, citing Leighner v. Leighner (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 214, 215. The first step is jurisdictional and requires the trial court to determine whether the original divorce decree provided continuing jurisdiction to modify the spousal support award, and if so, whether the circumstances of either party have changed. Malizia at ¶8. See, also, R.C. 3105.18(E). With respect to this jurisdictional hurdle, the Ohio Supreme Court has clarified that "[a] trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a prior order of spousal support unless the decree of the court expressly reserved jurisdiction to make the modification and unless the court finds (1) that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred and (2) that the change was not contemplated at the time of the original decree." (Emphasis added.) Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433, 2009-Ohio-1222, at paragraph two of the syllabus. Once jurisdiction is established, the second step of the analysis requires the trial court to determine whether the existing support order should be modified in light of the change in circumstances that has occurred. Johnson v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 24159, 2008-Ohio-4557, at ¶7. Such a determination is conducted in consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 3105.18(C). Id.

{¶9} Recently, this Court considered the implications of Mandelbaum when deciding appeals related to spousal support modification. Johns v. Johns, 9th Dist. No. 24704, 2009-Ohio-5798, at ¶6-11. In doing so, we noted that "we are bound by the Supreme Court’s precedent which abrogated our holding in Kingsolver [reasoning that any change in circumstance could warrant a modification to spousal support] and concluded that in order to modify spousal support a trial court must have continuing jurisdiction and must find ‘(1) that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred and (2) that the change was not contemplated at the time of the original decree.’" Johns at ¶8, quoting Mandelbaum at ¶33. In doing so, we held that, "because the trial court’s entry d[id] not include these findings, *** the trial court erred in modifying the spousal support award[.]" Id. at ¶10

{¶11} Upon review of the trial court’s July 2009 entry, it is apparent that the trial court did not make the requisite findings under Mandelbaum because it did not recount whether there was a substantial change in circumstances and that the change was not contemplated by the parties at the time of the divorce. Mandelbaum at paragraph two of the syllabus; Johns at ¶9-10. Given that the trial court failed to make such findings to properly establish jurisdiction over this matter, it further erred in proceeding to the second step of the analysis where it determined whether the existing support order should be terminated or reduced. Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 2d Dist. No. 21817, 2007-Ohio-6138, at ¶95 (concluding that a court may only proceed to the second step in the spousal support modification analysis once it has satisfied the first).

{¶12} Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Mandelbaum and this Court’s application of Mandelbaum in Johns, this matter must be remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether there was a substantial change in circumstances and whether the change was contemplated by the parties at the time of their divorce. Mandelbaum at paragraph two of the syllabus; Johns at ¶9-10.