COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61093 DAVID SOHN : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION KWANG J. LEE SOHN : : Defendant-appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : SEPTEMBER 24, 1992 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. D-202460 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendant-appellee: Michael R. Gareau, Esq. Ellen S. Mandell, Esq. William L. Costello, Esq. 24500 Chagrin Blvd. Gareau & Dubelko Co., L.P.A. Beachwood, OH 44122 23823 Lorain Road, Suite 200 North Olmsted, OH 44070 - 2 - PATTON, J. Plaintiff-appellant, David Sohn, appeals the trial court's award of alimony to defendant-appellee, Kwang Ji Lee Sohn, in the amount of $3,118 for the payment of legal fees and $330 for the payment of an interpreter. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: In October of 1986, the appellant's first wife passed away suddenly as a result of a brain hemorrhage. At or around the time the appellant's first wife passed away, appellant's mother and father came to the United States from Korea to assist him in raising his four children. Thereafter, in March of 1988, the appellant was contacted by the sisters of his deceased wife who resided in Korea. They informed him that they knew an unmarried woman who they believed would make a suitable spouse for the appellant. Following several telephone conversations and letters between the appellant and the appellee, the appellant traveled to Korea, in late May of 1988, to meet the appellee in person. After spending two weeks with each other, the appellant and appellee decided that they would be married. On June 3, 1988, prior to the appellant's return to the United States, the couple participated in an engagement ceremony in Korea. Following the engagement ceremony, the appellant returned to the United States and awaited the appellee's arrival pending the issuance of her visa. After receiving her visa, on October 28, - 3 - 1988, the appellee arrived in Cleveland. In preparation for a wedding ceremony which was to take place in November, the appellee made a one-week trip to San Francisco in order to purchase a wedding dress and visit a friend. The appellant reluctantly agreed to the trip after learning that the appellee's friend had previously arranged to pay for the trip. On November 19, 1988, a marriage ceremony was performed at a local church. Following a honeymoon, the couple returned to the marital home. Also residing at the marital home were appellant's four children and his parents, although two of the children were attending college at the time. The testimony revealed that the relationship between the parties occupying the marital home was strained from the beginning. The appellee spoke virtually no English, and she was unable to adapt to family life after living alone in Korea for forty-five years. As a result, the appellee withdrew and spent a majority of her time alone in her bedroom having little contact with the other family members. In January of 1989, the appellant told the appellee that they could not continue to live in this manner. He proposed that she return to Korea, visit her friend in San Francisco for a few months, or reconcile with his parents and start behaving like a member of the family. The appellee elected to visit her friend in San Francisco, and she left the marital residence on January 20, 1989. - 4 - The appellee remained in the San Francisco area until May of 1989, when she moved to the Los Angeles area. Thereafter, in July of 1989, the appellee moved to New York State. The appellant filed a complaint for annulment on May 23, 1989. Pursuant to an affidavit filed with the complaint, the appellant requested service by publication. Thereafter, on August 3, 1989, the appellant was granted an annulment. On November 24, 1989, after learning of the annulment, the appellee filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment or in the Alternative to Declare a Prior Order of the Court Void. The basis of the motion was that appellant's representation to the court that he was unable to achieve certified mail service upon the appellee was false. A hearing on the motion was held before a referee. The referee issued a report recommending that the annulment be declared void. By an order dated May 10, 1990, the trial court declared the annulment void and dismissed the motion for relief from judgment. No appeal was taken from that judgment. On May 18, 1990, the appellant filed a complaint for divorce on the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for one year. The divorce action was assigned Case No. D-202460. On June 12, 1990, the appellee inadvertently filed her response to the divorce complaint under Case No. D-194520, the case number assigned to the annulment action. As a result, the court sua sponte consolidated the two cases and ordered that the cases proceed as a contested divorce. On October 9, 1990, a trial was - 5 - held. Subsequent to the trial, the parties were granted a divorce and the appellant was ordered to pay, as alimony, $3,118 for the payment of the appellee's legal fees and $330 for the payment of an interpreter. In addition, the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding. After the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Thereafter, the appellee filed a motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to App. R. 23, which was referred to this panel for disposition. The appellant's two assignments of error are interrelated and will be discussed together. They provide: I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING THE DEFENDANT ALIMONY IN THE FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND INTERPRETER COSTS. II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING THE DEFENDANT ALIMONY, IN THE FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTORNEY FEES, WHEN A LARGE PROPORTION OF SAID FEES WERE INCURRED IN A DIFFERENT CASE. The appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring the appellant to pay a portion of appellee's attorney fees in the amount of $3,118 and interpreter costs in the amount of $330. Initially, appellant argues that the trial court's award was unreasonable in light of the short duration of the parties' marriage. The authority to award attorney fees in a divorce proceeding is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court. - 6 - Swanson v. Swanson (1976), 48 Ohio App.2d 85; Cohen v. Cohen (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 109. A decision to award attorney fees should take into consideration the statutory factors contained in R.C. 3105.18, specifically the earning abilities of the parties and the relative assets and liabilities of each. Birath v. Birath (1988), 53 Ohio App.3d 31, 39. Further, abuse of discretion means more than an error of law or judgment; rather, it implies an attitude that is "unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. In the instant case, the appellee sought $5,000 in attorney fees and costs. The trial court ordered the appellant to pay the appellee's attorney fees and interpreter costs in the amount of $3,448. In making its award, the trial court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 22. Defendant Kwang Ji Lee Sohn has had to borrow money in order to meet her living expenses and legal expenses during the period of time in which she has resided in New York. 23. The Defendant Kwang Ji Lee Sohn has incurred attorney fees and expenses in excess of $5,000.00 during the pendency of this divorce action as and for her defense of this action. 24. The Defendant Kwang Ji Lee Sohn has expended $440.00 for an interpreter to assist her in Court. * * * - 7 - 3. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 3105.18, the relative educational status and earning ability of the Plaintiff David Y. Sohn far exceeds that of the Defendant Kwang Ji Lee Sohn. 4. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 3105.18, the Defendant Kwang Ji Lee Sohn is entitled to alimony from the Plaintiff, toward payment of her legal fees and costs in this action. We specifically find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the appellant to pay the sum of $3,448 in attorney fees and interpreter costs. The trial court found that the appellant earned approximately $52,000 per year as an architect. The trial court further found that the appellee earned $1,000 per month until August 1990, at which time her earnings increased to $1,500 per month. Given the substantial disparity in the parties' earnings and the language barrier experienced by the appellee, we are unable to conclude that the trial court's award was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. The trial court had a sufficient basis to justify the award even though the parties lived together as man and wife for only a two-month period. Next, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the appellee attorney fees and costs for representation incurred in vacating the void judgment of annulment. Specifically, appellant argues that $2,475.30 of the appellee's legal fees which were incurred in vacating the annulment are not recoverable since they were incurred in an - 8 - action separate and apart from the parties divorce action. Appellant's argument lacks merit. Contrary to appellant's assertion, the record reveals, and we find, that the legal fees incurred in vacating the annulment were incurred as part of the contested divorce proceedings. The trial court's journal entry at Vol. 1666, p. 579 indicates that Case No. D-202460 [divorce action] was consolidated in Case No. D-194520 [alimony action] and that the case was to proceed as a contested divorce. Accordingly, it is clear that the annulment action and divorce action were consolidated by order of the court. Thus, we conclude that the legal fees incurred by the appellee in vacating the void judgment were properly considered by the trial court. Moreover, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court's consideration of these fees constituted an abuse of discretion. Consistent with the foregoing, the appellant's assignments of error are overruled. Next, we must address the appellee's motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to App. R. 23. Appellee maintains the instant appeal is frivolous. Appellee's contention lacks merit. In accordance with App. R. 23, the court of appeals may award to the appellee reasonable expenses, including costs and attorney fees, when it determines that the appellant has taken a frivolous appeal. Arena Produce Co. v. McMillan (1986), 27 Ohio - 9 - App.3d 384. A frivolous appeal under App. R. 23 is essentially one which presents no reasonable question for review. Talbott v. Fountas (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 226. We do not find that the instant appeal was frivolous. Thus, we deny appellee's App. R. 23 motion. In the instant case appellant's assignments of error questioning the validity of the attorney fees award and costs presented a reasonable question for review. In fact, this court frequently is called upon to review such awards. Under these circumstances, we decline to label the appeal frivolous and decline to award expenses and attorney fees to the appellee for the instant appeal. Accordingly, appellee's App. R. 23 motion 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. NAHRA, P.J. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON 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 journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .