COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59289 LUCY MAE HAMMONDS : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION HENRY D. HAMMONDS : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : OCTOBER 24, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. D-182,033 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: ALMETA A. JOHNSON Attorney at Law 13308 Euclid Avenue, #103 Cleveland, Ohio 44112 For defendant-appellant: ANTHONY A. GEDOS Attorney at Law 726 Statler Office Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44115 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J.: Defendant-appellant, Henry D. Hammonds, appeals from the judgment of the common pleas court, domestic relations division, which rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Lucy Mae Hammonds, on her complaint for alimony only and on appellant's counter-claim for divorce. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Appellant and appellee were married on June 14, 1965 in Atlanta, Georgia. They have one adult child together, and each has children from other marriages/relationships. They own property in which they reside and for which they paid forty-nine thousand dollars. The evidence reveals that appellant has been employed by the United States Post Office for over forty-five years. He current- ly works the night shift. Appellant is also a part-time minister and religion teacher. Appellant testified that he is a "work- aholic." Through appellant's employment with the post office and as a minister, he earns approximately forty-five thousand dollars annually. Appellant, at the time of trial, was seventy-four years old. - 2 - Appellee testified that sometime beginning in 1984, appel- lant no longer was able to meet her needs. She testified that appellant became argumentative and, on more than one occasion, he physically assaulted her. She further testified that appellant withdrew support and that her monthly living expenses were re- duced to a social security check of two hundred sixty-one dol- lars. The parties' daughter also testified as to life in the marital residence. Appellee further testified that appellant gave fifty thou- sand dollars to his son Howard, seven thousand to another son, and made other gifts of money to various family members without appellee's consent. Appellant stated that some of these gifts were, in fact, wages to his sons for helping build their home. Appellant testified that he wanted a divorce because appel- lee was "wasteful" and he was "number two" in appellee's life. Appellant and appellant's son from a previous relationship each testified to incidents alluding to appellee's unfaithfulness. Based on the above testimony, the trial court found in favor of appellee on her complaint and on appellant's counterclaim. The trial court reduced its judgment to a journal entry, therein providing appellee with alimony from appellant in the amount of one thousand dollars per month; awarded appellee appellant's interest in the marital dwelling, reserving to appellant a life estate therein; equally divided the proceeds of two savings accounts totalling over sixteen thousand dollars; equally divided - 3 - the funds held in a certificate of deposit in the name of the parties' grandchild, in care of appellee; equally divided the approximate two hundred shares of stock in the Centerior Energy Corporation; awarded appellant the six thousand dollars in a safe deposit box and the 1984 Buick, valued at three thousand five hundred dollars; ordered appellant to maintain appellee as bene- ficiary on his life insurance; ordered that appellee is to re- ceive one-half of appellant's pension or retirement account with the U. S. Postal Service; and ordered appellant to maintain Blue Cross coverage on behalf of appellee. Appellant timely appeals, raising five assignments of error for our review. Appellant's first assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRE- TION IN ITS FAILURE TO INDICATE ITS BASIS FOR ITS ALIMONY AWARD IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE DETERMINED WHETHER ITS AWARD IS FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. Citing to Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d 93, appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to specify in sufficient detail its basis for its award, be it alimony for support and maintenance or be it a property division. This argument lacks merit. "While a reviewing court will presume that a trial court has considered the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18/1\ and all other /1\R.C. 3105.18(B) provided at the time of trial: In determining whether alimony is necessary, and in determining the nature, amount, and manner of payment of alimony, the court shall - 4 - relevant factors, to ensure the fullest possible review by an appellate court, a party may request that the trial judge make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Civ. R. 52." Cherry v. Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 348, 356. On the other hand, it has been said that "[i]n allocating property between the parties to a divorce and in making an award of sustenance ali- mony, a trial court must indicate the basis for its award in sufficient detail to enable a reviewing court to determine that the award is fair, equitable and in accordance with the law." Kaechele, supra, at 97. consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (2) The ages, and the physical and emotional conditions of the par- ties; (3) The retirement benefits of the parties; (4) The expectancies and inheritances of the parties; (5) The duration of the marriage; (6) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because he will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (7) The standard of living of the par- ties established during the mar- riage; (8) The relative extent of education of the parties; (9) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties; (10) The property brought to the mar- riage by either party; (11) The contribution of a spouse as homemaker. - 5 - In Kaechele, the court of appeals was unable to ascertain, from the record or the determination of the trial court, whether the trial court had considered a future bonus to the husband when it allocated property between the parties to a divorce and in making an award of sustenance alimony. Id. In the present case, no such problem exists. The trial court's judgment is journal- ized in an entry consisting of six pages. Furthermore, the trial court explained its decision and is recorded in four pages of the transcript of proceedings. As an example, the court explained part of its decision to award appellee appellant's interest in the marital home as an "offset" since appellant had taken fifty thousand dollars from the marital funds and given them to his son Howard. Therefore, we find, from the record and determination of the trial court, that the trial court indicated its basis for its award in sufficient detail to ensure the fullest possible review by this court. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is over- ruled. Appellant's second, third and fifth assignments of error raise similar issues of law and fact. They state: II.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN MAKING A DIVISION OF THE PARTIES' PROPERTY IN AN ALIMONY ONLY ACTION WHERE SAID PROPERTY DIVISION WAS UNRELATED TO NOR CONFINED TO THE MAIN- TENANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE APPELLEE AS AND FOR ALIMONY. - 6 - III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING APPELLEE JUDGMENT ON HER ALIMONY ONLY COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY WHERE IT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT'S CON- DUCT WAS OF SUCH A NATURE AND QUALITY SO AS TO JUSTIFY SUCH A CONCLUSION. V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN MAKING ITS PROPERTY DIVI- SION AWARD. Appellant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in awarding appellee alimony and in finalizing a property division among the parties. This argument lacks merit. "The term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is un- reasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. . .. (Citations omit- ted.)" Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 219. Thus, it has been noted that "a domestic-relations award should be fair, equitable, and in accordance with law. The reviewing court should measure the lower court's adherence to that test but it should not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, unless the lower court's decision amounts to an abuse of discretion." Kaechele, supra, at 94; Martin v. Martin (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 292, 294-95. - 7 - Under Sections 3105.17 and 3105.18, Revised Code,/2\ a court has the same power in awarding alimony only that it does in awarding alimony where a divorce is granted. Goetzel v. Goetzel (1959), 161 Ohio St. 350, paragraph one of court's syllabus. In Ohio, alimony is comprised of two components: a division of marital assets and liabilities, and periodic payments for susten- ance and support. Kaechele, supra, at 15; Cherry, supra, at 352. After the division of property is made, the trial court may consider (1) whether an additional amount is needed for sus- tenance and (2) the duration of such necessity. Kaechele, supra, at 95; Wolfe v. Wolfe (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 399, 414. /2\Sections 3105.17 and 3105.18 were amended by Am. Sub. H. 514, effective 1/1/91, which also added R.C. 3105.171. The amended statutes do not apply to the instant action as the cause was filed in 1987 and tried in 1989. R.C. 3105.171 now provides factors to be considered by the trial court in making an equi- table division of marital property, while R.C. 3105.18 provides factors to be considered by the trial court in determining whe- ther spousal support is appropriate and reasonable. An equitable division of marital property is appropriate, under R.C. 3105.171(B), in either a divorce proceeding or a legal separation proceeding. An award of spousal support is appropriate, under R.C. 3105.18(B), in either a divorce proceeding or a legal sepa- ration proceeding as well. The Revised Code now provides for spousal support and the division of marital property instead of for alimony. Pages, Ohio Revised Code Annotated: 1990 Legisla- tion, p. 664. Previously, an equitable division of marital property and an award of spousal support was considered as ali- mony, see, Cherry v. Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 348, 351, and each was appropriate in either a divorce proceeding or a legal separation proceeding. See, Goetzel v. Goetzel (1959), 169 Ohio St. 350, paragraph one of court's syllabus. R.C. 3105.171(B) now explicitly states that an equitable division of marital property is appropriate in a legal separation proceeding. - 8 - R.C. 3105.18(B) provides the relevant factors to be considered by the trial court when determining whether alimony is necessary./3\ Therefore, pursuant to Goetzel, supra, appellant's second assignment of error is overruled. Furthermore, the record ade- quately supports the trial court's judgment. Both appellant and appellee testified as to their married life together. Appellant and her daughter testified as to life in the marital residence. Further, appellee stated he was a "workaholic," worked at night, and slept during the day. The trial court was free to find appellee's witnesses more credible than appellant's. Therefore, appellant's third and fifth assignments of error are overruled. Appellant's fourth assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED BY NOT AWARDING APPELLANT JUDGMENT ON HIS COUNTERCLAIM FOR DIVORCE WHERE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE. Appellant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion by finding in appellee's favor on appellant's counter- claim for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. This argu- ment lacks merit. Initially, we note appellant's counter-claim alleged "gross neglect" as grounds for divorce. In any event, whether the evi- dence supports the grounds for a divorce or for alimony is with- in the discretion of the trial court. Knifen v. Knifen (Jan. /3\See ftnt. 1, infra. - 9 - 17, 1985), Cuyahoga App. No. 48430, unreported, at 4. The determination of what facts support the grounds for divorce depend upon the circumstances of each case. Id.; O'Leary v. O'Leary (Nov. 3, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 46220, unreported. In the present case, appellant presented little evidence in support of his claim. Appellant testified that appellee was "wasteful," that he was "number two" in her life, and further alluded to appellee's unfaithfulness. Appellee denied any such allegations. The trial court was free to find appellee's testi- mony more credible than appellant's. Accordingly, appellant's fourth assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 10 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, P.J. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, J. CONCUR JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .