IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No. On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eightli Appellate District, Case Nos. 08-091882 and 08-091914 SANDRA L. JANOSEK, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. JAMES C. JANOSEK, Defendant-Appellant. Memorandum In Support Of Jurisdiction Of Appellant James C. Janosek James A. Loeb (0040943) Vincent A. Stafford (0059846) counselqfrecord Gregory J. Moore (0076156) David L. Marburger (0025747) STAFFORD & STAFFORD Co., L.P.A. Suzanne M. Jambe (0062007) The Stafford Building Matthew J. Cavanagh (0079522) 2105 Ontario Street BAKER & HOSTFTLER LLP Cleveland, Ohio 44115 3200 National City Center Tel: (216) 241-1074 1900 East Ninth Street Fax: (216) 241-4572 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Tel: (216) 621-0200 Counselfor Appellee ,.. Fax: (216) 696-0740 Sandra L. Janoselc [email protected] Counsel for Appellant James C. Janosek Larry W. Zukermau (0029498) Paul B. Daiker (0062268) ZUKERMAN, DAIKER & LEAR Co., LPA 3912 Prospect Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Tel: (216) 696-0900 Fax: (216) 696-8800 [email protected] Co-counsel for Appellant James C. .Ianoselc TABLE OF CONTENTS Pne The substantial legal issue of public and great general interest ....................... I 1. Crux of the issue . .......................................................................................... r II. Core legal history underlying the issue ...................................................... 2 A. Ohio law before i99i ............................................................................. 2 B. The i99z statutory revision .................................................................... 4 How the courts of appeals diverge .............................................................................. 5 A. The 9ci, appellate district ........................................................................ 5 B. The iori, appellate district ....................................................................... 6 C. The 8`h appellate district - Cuyahoga County ..................................... 6 D. The rzci, appellate district ....................................................................... 7 E. The 7th appellate district ..................................................................... 8 F. The ad appellate district ..................................................................... 8 III. This Court should review this case .............................................................. 9 Statement of Facts and Statement of the Case........................................................ 10 I. The Parties ........................................................................................................ 10 II. Welded Ring Products Co ............................................................................. 11 III. T'rial and original judgment entry ............................................................... 11 IV. The first appeal -Janosek-z (2007) .............................................................. iz V. James seeks this Court's rcview in]anosek-i ............................................... 12 VI. Remand: the parties agree on dividing the property ............................... 12 502575181 VII. Spousal support on remand ........................................................................ 13 VIII. A divided Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals affinns - Janosek-a (2009) ............................................................................................................... 14 Argument: the crux of why the dissenting judge is correct ................................. 14 Proposition of law: In replacing alimony with "spousal support," the legislature did not reject Kunkle v. Kunkle, but kept intact its analysis that court-ordered payments for "sustenance and support" lose their statutory authority where healthy divorced spouses are financially independent. ......... 14 502575181 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Caselaw P-age Bertholet v Bertholet, 154 Ohio App. 3d ioi, zoo2-Ohio-4519, 796 N.E.2d 541(2003) ...................................................................................................... 6 Branden v Branden, 8`t' Dist. no. 91453, 2009 WL 478383, 20o9-Ohio-866 (2009) ..................................................... ........... ................. ......................... 7 Carnehan v Carnehan, 118 Ohio APp•3d 393, 692 N.E.2d io86 (1997) ......... 7,8 5,6 Chaudhry v Chaudhry, 9th Dist. no. 1525z, i99z WL 74204 ............................ Frye v Frye, io`h Dist. no. Apfog-m8, i994 WL 109708 (1994) ••••••••••.-^.......... 6 Janosek v)anosek, Cuya. App. nos. g1882, 91914, 2009 WL 2400313 at *5, n. 5, zoo9-Ohio-388z .................................................................................. 2 Joseph v Joseph, 122 Ohio APP.3d 734, 702 N.E.2d 949 (1997) ...................... 9 KunTde v Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 554 N.E.zd 83 ............................................... 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7,12, 14,15 Mandelbaum v Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433, 2009-Ohio-1222, 905 .................................................................................. 10,15 N.E.2d 172 (2009) .. Orley v Orley, 8"' Dist. no. 69622, 1996 WI.. 715481 (1996) ............................. 7 Perry v Perry, 2d Dist. no. o7-CA-u, 2oo8 WL 748370, zoo8-Ohio- 1315 (zoo8) .................................................................................................... 9 Purden v Purden, io`h Dist. No Apfio-1428, i994 WL 242523 (1994) ............... 7,14 ............ 8,9 Seagraves v Seagraves, zd Dist. no> 15588, 1996 WL 185332 (1996) Simoni v Simoni, ioz Ohio App.3d 628, 657 N.E.zd 8oo (1995) ....................... 6, 7 Waller v Waller, 163 Ohio ApP.3d 303, 2005-Ohio-489i, 837 N.E.2d 843 (2005) .............................................................................................................. 8 502575181 I11 Wolfe v Wolfe, 46 Ohio St,2d 399, 54o N.E•zd 413 (1976) ................................. 3, 8 Statutes Am. Sub. H.B. No. 514 ............................................................................................. 4, 5 R.C. 3105.i8 .......................................................................................................... 1,4,13 Other Publications U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., Nat'l Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 57, No. i9 ....................................................................................................................... 10 U.S. Census Bureau (Feb. 8, zooz), Nearly 9 in io People May Marry, But Half May End in Divorce ............................................................................................... 9 502575181 iv The substantial legal issue of public and great general interest 1. Crux of the issue. This appeal presents a recurring, fundamental question of unsettled family law that has spawned hundreds of appeals since the General Assembly revised Ohio's alimony statute nearly two decades ago, in r99r. The question is unsettled because Ohio's courts of appeals disagree about it, as did individual appellate judges in this case, and this Court has not yet addressed it. In r99o, this Court explained in Kunlde v. Kunkle that the alimony statute allowed courts to order alimony only to distribute marital property and to pay additional money for "sustenance and support." 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 67, 554 N.E.2d 83, 86. Where a former spouse can satisfy the demands on that spouse's own finances with that spouse's own resources, Kunkle ruled that he or she is self-supporting and does not need alimony for "sustenance and support." In those circumstances, the Court decided, courts should not require alimony. '( i of the syllabus. The next year, i99t, the General Assembly rewrote the alimony statute. It dispensed with the undefined "alimony," and separated payments of marital property from payments for "spousal support." It defined "spousal support" as payments supplying "sustenance and for support," the same words Kunkle used. R.C. 3io5.i8(A). Ohio's appellate courts are divided on whether that statutory change ended Kunkle's validity seven months after this Court decided it. Here, each former spouse - James and Sandra Janosek - is an independently wealthy multi-millionaire in good health. Sandra's su million agreed-upon share of the 5°Z575722 marital property leaves her with two homes mortgage-free and living expenses confined to clothing, dining, entertainment, and travel. The court of appeals did not disturb the trial court's findings that Sandra's cash alone -- $8 million -- can earn enough interest on "safe investments" to amount to an annual salary of $320,ooo and thus "adequately sustain her standard of living."' Yet, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order that James pay $15,ooo/month to Sandra in spousal support for 18 years. Deciding that the r99i statutory change defused Kunkle, the court broke with its own precedents, over a dissenting judge's objection, by ruling that "need is no longer the standard" for spousal support.' The question for this Court to resolve is pure substantive law arising from undisputed facts: When the General Assembly created "spousal support" in r99z, did it dismantle this Court's comprehensive analysis of sustenance alimony in Kunlcle, or did the General Assembly leave it intact? II. Core legal history underlying the issue. A. Ohio law before i99i. For most of the ao`'' century, Ohio statutes allowed courts to order one former spouse to pay "alimon}" to the other spouse after divorce had severed all of their other marital ties. The statutes did not define "alimony" or distinguish between court-ordered payments that divided marital property and those that supported an ex-spouse after (T.Ct findings on remand, 7-23-o8, at 7.) Janosekv. Janosek (`Janosek-a"), Cuya. App. nos. 91882, 91914, aoo9 WL 2400313 at *5 n.5, *6, *9, 2oo9-Ohio-3882, ¶s 33 n.5, 43, 31. 502575721 a divorce. Divorce law originally required alimony only where an estranged couple stayed married, but lived apart, thus continuing th.e marital duty of financial support.3 Eventually, liability to pay alimony depended on whether the court granted divorce because of "the husband's aggression" or the wife's "aggression," which was legal fault.4 In the late zoth centuiy, Ohio and other states changed their laws to allow "no fault" divorces. All of those statutory changes required rethinking the rationale for alimony. Today, divorced couples are "henceforth single persons," "strangers to each other," and legally without fault in terminating their marriages.s Once divorced couples receive their shares of rnarital property, the mutual duties of the marital relationship -- including mandatory mutual support -- do not survive divorce. Still, statutes allow courts to require one "stranger" to pay income earned from that person's fitture labor to another "stranger" solely because they were once rnan and wife. When interpreting those laws, the challenge for judges is to identify what the legislature intends to achieve when allowing that single obligation of marriage to continue beyond divorce and after the parties have divided their marital assets. In Kunkle, this Court rose to that challenge, explaining that courts must limit post- divorce alimony to "sustenance and support" unless ordering it to disperse marital property. 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 67, 554 N.E.2d 83, 86. Wolfe v. Wolfe ( 1976), 46 Ohio St.zd 399, 404, 54o N. E.2d 413, 417. 4 E.g., former G.C. §§ ii99o, 11993• 5 Wolfe v. Wolfe (1976), 46 Ohio St.zd 399, 410, 54o N.E.2d 413, 421. 50257572z 3 "Sustenance and support" is more than a minimalist's view of bare clothing, food and shelter. The goal, ICunlcle decided, was to provide enough money to avoid abrupt "undue hardship" to a financially-dependent spouse who suddenly lost a primary or sole means of financial support through divorce. 51 Ohio St.3d at 69, 554 N.E.2d at 88. Alimony for "sustenance and support" was supposed to provide what an ex-spouse "needs" to make the transition from financial-dependence to financial-independence. Once a former spouse has the "resources" and other means to be comfortably "self- supporting," alimony no longer seives its statutory purpose because the former spouse no longer "needs" it to achieve financial independence. That is syllabus law in Kunkle. B. The r991 statutory revision. In r99r, less than a year after Kunlde, the General Assembly revised the alimony statute. Dropping the term "alimony," it divided alimony's functions between two statutes: one for dividing marital property (R.C. 3105.171) and one for "spousal support" (R.C. 3105.18), which is at issue here. The bill, H.B. 514, revised parts of the existing alimony statute this way: (B) In divorce ...proceedings, .. . the court of common pleas may allow ,hir^^^ it ^ °id°^° AWARD reasonable SPOUSAL SUPPORT to either party. (C)(i) In determining whether alin4eny SPOUSAL SUPPORT is neFessaily APPROPRIAI'E AND REASONABLE,... the court shall consider all reelevai# OF THE FOLLOWING factors: .... (Am. Sub. H.B. No. 5i4, at 5-8ro.) H.B. 514 then listed 14 factors, most of which the legislature retained from the predecessor statute. 'I'he legal controversy in Ohio's courts of appeals and in this appeal centers on the 502575722 4