Saari v. Saari
195 Ohio App.3d 444, 2011 Ohio 4710, 960 N.E.2d 539 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a court order requiring spousal support payments is reversed on appeal, the trial court's remedy on remand must be reasonable and aimed at making the payor whole. A grossly extended, interest-free repayment plan is an abuse of discretion, and the party who wrongfully pursued and obtained the support is liable for ancillary costs, such as employer processing fees, under the principle that the one who caused the loss should bear it.
Facts:
- Scott Saari ('Husband') and Patricia Saari ('Wife') entered into a prenuptial agreement that precluded either party from receiving spousal support.
- The parties were married in June 2004.
- During their divorce proceedings, Wife challenged the validity of the prenuptial agreement's spousal support provision and actively sought such an award.
- Pursuant to a court order that was later reversed, Husband paid Wife $4,000 per month in spousal support for 12 months, for a total of $48,000.
- Husband's employer withheld $469.78 in processing fees from his income to comply with the spousal support withholding order.
- The marriage ended in divorce in October 2008.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Saari ('Wife') sued Scott Saari ('Husband') for divorce in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division (the trial court).
- The trial court found the spousal support provision of the parties' prenuptial agreement unconscionable and ordered Husband to pay Wife $48,000 in spousal support.
- Husband appealed the judgment to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
- In the first appeal ('Saari I'), the Court of Appeals reversed the spousal support award and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
- On remand, the trial court ordered Wife to reimburse Husband the $48,000 at a rate of $250 per month without interest, and did not order reimbursement for employer processing fees.
- Husband, as appellant, appealed the trial court's remand order to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion when, after an appellate court reverses a spousal support award, it orders the recipient to repay the $48,000 amount over a 16-year period without interest and fails to order reimbursement for processing fees deducted by the payor's employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Carr, Presiding Judge
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by fashioning an unreasonable and arbitrary remedy to correct an erroneous spousal support award. The mandate on remand was to return Husband to the position he would have been in had he never paid support. Forcing Husband to wait 16 years to recover money he wrongfully paid over one year, without interest, is a grossly unreasonable repayment schedule. Furthermore, ancillary costs like processing fees should be borne by the party who caused the loss. Because Wife actively pursued the spousal support award in contravention of the prenuptial agreement, she caused the loss and must reimburse Husband for the processing fees his employer withheld. The principle that 'as between two innocent parties, he who has caused the loss shall bear it' applies, making Wife responsible for all costs stemming from the erroneous order she sought.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that a trial court's equitable discretion on remand is limited by a standard of reasonableness, particularly when remedying a monetary judgment that has been reversed. It clarifies that a remedy is unreasonable if it imposes a significant, long-term financial burden on the party who was wrongfully made to pay, such as an extended, interest-free repayment plan. The case also sets a notable precedent by applying the equitable maxim that 'he who caused the loss shall bear it' to the ancillary costs of litigation, ensuring that the party who wrongfully obtains a court order is responsible for all resulting financial consequences, including processing fees, not just the principal amount.
