[Cite as Milatovich v. Milatovich, 2018-Ohio-4151.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LISA A. MILATOVICH : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

ERIC E. MILATOVICH : Case No. 18 CA 09 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 17DR167 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 9, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

STEPHANIE L. CHURCH JEANETTE MOLL 

139 West Eighth Street 803 Market Street 

P.O. Box 640 Zanesville, OH 43701 

Cambridge, OH 43725-0640 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 2 

Wise, Earle, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Eric E. Milatovich, appeals the March 9, 2018 entry of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Guernsey County, Ohio denying his objections on the 

issue of spousal support. Plaintiff-Appellee is Lisa A. Milatovich. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} Appellant and appellee were married on May 26, 1990. On April 10, 2017, 

appellee filed a complaint for divorce. A hearing before a magistrate was held on 

November 21, 2017. The only contested issue was spousal support. By decision filed 

November 30, 2017, the magistrate noted the parties had entered into an agreement 

wherein they divided all assets and liabilities of the marriage, and the agreement was 

attached to and incorporated into the decision. The magistrate ordered appellant to pay 

appellee $2,000 per month in spousal support for an indefinite period of time. By decree 

of divorce filed November 30, 2017, the trial court approved and adopted the magistrate's 

decision. The trial court retained jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support. 

{¶ 3} Appellant filed objections. By entry filed March 9, 2018, the trial court 

denied the objections. 

{¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

I 

{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT IS NEITHER 

APPROPRIATE NOR REASONABLE PURSUANT TO O.R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)." 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 3 

II 

{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO SET FORTH SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO 

DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS AND REASONABLENESS OF THE AWARD 

OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT." 

III 

{¶ 7} "THE INDEFINITE DURATION OF THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF 

SPOUSAL SUPPORT IS NEITHER APPROPRIATE NOR REASONABLE." 

I, II, III 

{¶ 8} In his three assignments of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in its 

spousal support award. We disagree. 

{¶ 9} Specifically, appellant argues the spousal support award was neither 

appropriate nor reasonable, sufficient detail to determine the appropriateness and 

reasonableness is lacking, and the indefinite duration was neither appropriate nor 

reasonable. 

{¶ 10} A trial court has broad discretion in determining a spousal support award. 

Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275, 2003-Ohio-3624, 791 N.E.2d 434; Stevens v. 

Stevens, 23 Ohio St.3d 115, 492 N.E.2d 131 (1986). 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). 

{¶ 11} R.C. 3105.18 governs spousal support. Subsection (C) states the following: 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 4 

(C)(1) In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and 

reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment, 

and duration of spousal support, which is payable either in gross or in 

installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors: 

(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not 

limited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed 

under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; 

(b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; 

(c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of 

the parties; 

(d) The retirement benefits of the parties; 

(e) The duration of the marriage; 

(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because 

that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek 

employment outside the home; 

(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the 

marriage; 

(h) The relative extent of education of the parties; 

(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not 

limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties; 

(j) The contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning 

ability of the other party, including, but not limited to, any party's contribution 

to the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party; 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 5 

(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking 

spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the 

spouse will be qualified to obtain appropriate employment, provided the 

education, training, or job experience, and employment is, in fact, sought; 

(l) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal 

support; 

(m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted 

from that party's marital responsibilities; 

(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and 

equitable. 

{¶ 12} In its decision filed November 30, 2017, approved and adopted by the trial 

court, the magistrate found the parties had been married for 271⁄2 years. The magistrate 

noted appellant's base pay, then took his social security wages and added "back in the 

health benefits that are before taxes" from his W-2s for 2014, 2015, and 2016, and then 

subtracted the base pay to determine the bonuses appellant received in those given 

years. The magistrate averaged the bonuses and added the amount to his base pay to 

arrive at a final figure. 

{¶ 13} The magistrate found appellee was a stay-at-home mom, has a history of 

part-time employment, and recently obtained her realtor's license. She is currently 

working on listing properties, but is waiting to seek other employment until the marital 

residence is sold because she wishes to relocate. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 6 

{¶ 14} The magistrate noted that "[b]oth parties will be starting new. * * * The 

standard of living will be modified for both parties. However, Husband will still have 

healthcare, paid vacations and a 401-K. Wife will have none of those benefits. Therefore 

the standard of living can only be made equitable with a spousal support order." Due to 

the disparity in income, the magistrate concluded $2,000 per month for an indefinite 

period was appropriate and reasonable. 

{¶ 15} The magistrate specifically noted that she considered all of the factors set 

forth in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). A trial court does not need to "acknowledge all evidence 

relative to each and every factor listed in R.C. 3105.18(C), and we may not assume that 

the evidence was not considered." Hutta v. Hutta, 177 Ohio App.3d 414, 2008-Ohio3756, 894 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 27 (5th Dist.). "The trial court must set forth only sufficient 

detail to enable a reviewing court to determine the appropriateness of the award." Id.

{¶ 16} Upon review, we find there is sufficient detail in the magistrate's decision to 

enable this court to determine the appropriateness and reasonableness of the amount 

and duration of the award. 

{¶ 17} Appellant first argues the magistrate erred in computing his yearly income. 

In her decision, the magistrate noted the amount of appellant's base pay, then took his 

social security wages and added "back in the health benefits that are before taxes" from 

his W-2s for 2014, 2015, and 2016, and then subtracted the base pay to determine the 

bonuses appellant received in those given years. The magistrate averaged the bonuses 

and added the amount to his base pay to arrive at a final figure. Appellant argues the 

magistrate erred in adding in the amount he paid for healthcare because those monies 

do not constitute disposable income. Appellant argues if the magistrate had relied "upon 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 7 

income which is available and liquid," the final figure representing his yearly income would 

be $4,149.92 less. Appellant's Brief at 3. 

{¶ 18} The controller for appellant's employer testified that appellant receives a 

yearly bonus, but did not know the amounts appellant has received. T. at 21. He did not 

have the records with him. T. at 24-25. In trying to figure out appellant's bonus for 2016, 

the controller explained that appellant pays for healthcare coverage that is tax free and 

not included in the amount representing his social security wages. T. at 23. Because an 

accurate bonus amount could not be determined, the magistrate questioned the controller 

about all the figures on appellant's W-2. T. at 28-30. The controller agreed appellant 

earned the sum of his social security wages plus the amount he spent for healthcare 

coverage. T. at 29-30. As a result, the magistrate added the non-taxed healthcare 

payments to appellant's social security wages to determine the bonus amounts. Appellant 

could have presented evidence of the bonus amounts, but chose not to do so. We do not 

find the trial court abused its discretion in adding in the non-taxed healthcare coverage 

payments. 

{¶ 19} Next, appellant argues his bonuses are not guaranteed and is paid at the 

end of the year and therefore not available for distribution on a monthly basis. 

{¶ 20} In determining spousal support, a trial court is to consider "[t]he income of 

the parties, from all sources." R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a). Appellant receives a bonus which 

is income to him. The magistrate calculated an average bonus by taking appellant's 

bonuses for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and dividing by three. The president of the company 

that employs appellant testified the bonuses "stays pretty consistent over time." T. at 15. 

We do not find the trial court abused its discretion in including the yearly bonus appellant 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 8 

receives in the computation of his income. The trial court has retained jurisdiction if 

anything should change. 

{¶ 21} Appellant also argues the magistrate's calculations erroneously includes 

amounts that are placed into his 401K as they are included in the social security wages 

and are not available for distribution. 

{¶ 22} Sums that are placed into appellant's 401K are voluntary and are for his 

benefit in the future. Parties anticipating or going through a divorce could max out their 

401K contribution and effectively lower their taxable income for the calculation of spousal 

support if the 401K contributions are not considered. We do not find the trial court abused 

its discretion in including sums that are paid into appellant's 401K. 

{¶ 23} Appellant also argues the magistrate failed to consider his marital debts, 

including the ones that are deducted from his pay automatically. Appellant argues he is 

"left with no monthly income to pay for his living expenses since his marital debt load is 

so disproportionately high while his remaining disposable income is so disproportionately 

low." Appellant's Brief at 6. Appellant also argues appellee received a greater award of 

the assets. 

{¶ 24} Once appellant pays off his obligations tied to the automatic deductions, his 

take-home pay will increase. The parties settled the allocation of the marital assets and 

debts as evidenced in the Marital Balance Sheet attached to the magistrate's decision as 

Exhibit A. T. at 12. Although appellant argues he has incurred a disproportionate marital 

debt load, he also has a disproportionately higher asset allocation. The net result is that 

the parties reached a nearly equal distribution. We do not find any evidence that the trial 

court failed to consider his marital debts. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 9 

{¶ 25} Lastly, appellant argues the magistrate failed to determine appellee's 

income. The magistrate clearly found appellee's highest earnings for a year were 

$20,156.46 in 2009. T. at 39. The magistrate calculated the $2,000 monthly support 

order by determining all of the factors set forth in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), including the 

disparity of the parties' income "even using the highest income Wife has earned." We do 

not find any evidence that the trial court failed to consider appellee's income. 

{¶ 26} Using appellee's highest earning year, $20,156.46 (which she does not 

currently earn), plus the spousal support award of $24,000.00, appellee will "receive" a 

total of $44,156.46 per year, a little over half of what appellant earns. 

{¶ 27} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in computing 

the spousal support award under R.C. 3105.18. We do not find it to be inappropriate or 

unreasonable 

{¶ 28} As for the indefinite period of time, in Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 

554 N.E.2d 83 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held 

the following: 

Except in cases involving a marriage of long duration, parties of 

advanced age or a homemaker-spouse with little opportunity to develop 

meaningful employment outside the home, where a payee spouse has the 

resources, ability and potential to be self-supporting, an award of 

sustenance alimony should provide for the termination of the award, within 

a reasonable time and upon a date certain, in order to place a definitive limit 

upon the parties' rights and responsibilities. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 10 

{¶ 29} "Twenty-five years of marriage could certainly be considered a marriage of 

long duration, which in and of itself would permit a trial court to award spousal support of 

indefinite duration without abusing its discretion or running afoul of the mandates of 

Kunkle." Corpac v. Corpac, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 91AP-1036, 1992 WL 41244, *2 (Feb. 

27, 1992); Benschoter v. Benschoter, 5th Dist. Licking No. 17-CA-25, 2017-Ohio-8827. 

{¶ 30} The magistrate specifically found the duration of the marriage was 271⁄2 

years. Appellee was a stay-at-home mom and worked part-time jobs to supplement the 

income "so that the boys could do their activities" and "didn't have to go to [a] babysitter." 

T. at 35. This court has previously found that in a case where the parties were married 

for twenty-four years and the trial court retained jurisdiction over spousal support, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in awarding indefinite spousal support. Keigley v. 

Keigley, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 15-CA-12, 2016-Ohio-180. 

{¶ 31} When appellee finds employment after her move, appellant can petition the 

court for a modification of spousal support as the trial court retained jurisdiction over the 

issue. 

{¶ 32} Upon review, we find based upon the circumstances of this case, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in ordering spousal support for an indefinite time period. 

{¶ 33} Assignments of Error I, II, and III are denied. 

 
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 09 11 

{¶ 34} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Guernsey County, Ohio is 

hereby affirmed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

 

 

EEW/db 914