Court of Appeals: Third District: Spousal Support Debate 

        On Jan 10, 2011, a lengthy spousal support debate involving conflict over one party's substantial inheritance finally came to a conclusion when the Court of Appeals of Ohio confirmed the trial court's previous order, and ruled in favor of the wife, Lisa Timberlake.

        This battle first began when John and Lisa Timberlake divorced on January 31, 2007, after twenty-six years of marriage. The couple had first filed for divorce on December 8, 2006, and had agreed on a stipulation proclaiming the division of all real and personal property, vehicles, bank accounts, retirement plans, and debts. The stipulation also stated that John would pay spousal support. The spousal support schedule provided that John would pay Lisa $50,000 annually for ten years, and then pay her $30,000 for the eleventh and final year of support. John's income at the time of the couple's divorce was $160,000 per year, while Lisa had been working a part time job and earning $7.50 an hour. This stipulation further declared that the spousal support would terminate if either party were to become deceased or if Lisa remarried or cohabitated with an adult male who was not a member of her family.      

        John felt that the conditions which had sustained his spousal support changed after both Lisa's parents died in 2008. Lisa and her sister Suzanne, each received a sizable inheritance in the amount of $1,269,000. It was John's opinion that Lisa should no longer be entitled to spousal support based on the recent change in her financial state of affairs. On May 20, 2009, he filed a motion to terminate spousal support.   After hearing testimony from both Lisa, Suzanne, and a financial planning specialist, the trial court discussed whether or not to consider a modification of the law by applying R. C. 3105.18: Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, which ruled that "a trial court has jurisdiction to modify a prior order of spousal support if the court finds that (1) a substantial change in circumstances has occurred and (2) the change was not contemplated at the time of the original decree. The court ruled that it had maintained jurisdiction to modify the order and that Lisa's inheritance constituted a significant change in circumstances. Nevertheless, the court also found that "Mandelbaum test" was not completely met, as the inheritance was a change in circumstances, which was specifically contemplated during the stipulation.

        After receiving this verdict, John proceeded to appeal the courts decision proclaiming that there was no way to know when Lisa's parents would die and also no way to predict how much she would receive in the inheritance. He stated that this was proof enough to demonstrate that their discussions about the inheritance during the stipulation were not sufficient to "contemplate" and assess the situation beforehand. To refute his claims, both Lisa and Suzanne testified that John had been fully knowledgeable before the divorce was filed about her parent's poor health, as well as the substantial estate, which would be bestowed upon the two children, following the parents passing.

        The court further reviewed the case and ruled in favor of Lisa, citing that "Lisa's inheritance was a contemplated change of circumstances that was taken into account by the parties as they were negotiating their final agreement. Therefore, it is not proper to disrupt the finality of the decree in order to provide John with another opportunity to obtain terms that he was not able to negotiate in the original situation."  

Firm Update

What's new at Fanger & Associates LLC 

 

New Additions to Our Legal Team!

By: Larissa Martin

Carlie Hangartner

        As our firm continues to grow and expand, we are excited for the new additions to our team.  This month we welcome Carlie Hangartner and Michael A. Parente to our staff.    

        Ms. Hangartner joins us as our Legal Secretary and earned a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from The State University of New York College at Buffalo.  She is currently pursuing a Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Paralegal Studies from Lakeland Community College with an anticipated graduation date of May 2012.  Her positive attitude and strong work-ethic will make her an excellent asset to our team.

Michael A. Parente

        Michael A. Parente is the newest member to join the Fanger & Associates legal team.  He is an Associate Attorney practicing in the areas of estate planning, probate, and trust.  He received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Toledo College of Law and also earned a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice.  Mr. Parente is a member of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association and the Ohio State Bar Association.  We look forward to his strong contributions to our firm.  

        Clients with legal questions or concerns are encouraged to contact Mr. Parente to discuss the options available to them.