COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 66851 : NADA KUCMANIC : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION : STJEPAN KUCMANIC : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT MARCH 2, 1995 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Domestic Relations Division of Common Pleas Court Case No. D-192080 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: EDWARD L. JOSEPH, ESQ. ANDREW J. SIMON, ESQ. 1458 Leader Building Zashin, Rich & Sutula 526 Superior Avenue 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1401 Suite 1490 and Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LORETTA A. COYNE, ESQ. 4239 Ridge Road Cleveland, Ohio 44144 -2- PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: Stjepan Kucmanic, defendant-appellant, appeals from an order requiring him to pay spousal support to his former wife, Nada Kucmanic, plaintiff-appellee. Stjepan Kucmanic assigns the following three errors for our review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT IN ITS AWARD OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT AS IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTORS LISTED IN R.C. 3105.18(B), IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF THE APPELLEE, AND IT HAD NO EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT'S ABILITY TO PAY. II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY AWARDING JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLANT FOR $21,000 AND RETROACTIVELY SETTING APPELLANT'S SPOUSAL SUPPORT OBLIGATION WHERE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY $21,000 IN A LUMP SUM. III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY ORDERING APPELLANT TO PAY $3,500 TOWARD APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY FEES AS THERE WAS NO DEMONSTRATION BY APPELLEE THAT HER ATTORNEY FEES WERE REASONABLE OR THAT APPELLANT HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY THEM. Having reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. Nada and Stjepan Kucmanic were divorced on July 24, 1990 after 20 years of marriage. Nada Kucmanic was employed part time as a department store sales clerk and Stjepan Kucmanic was a skilled laborer at General Motors. The journal entry of divorce ordered Stjepan Kucmanic to pay Nada Kucmanic $150.00 per week ($600.00 per month) in spousal support for three years. Stjepan Kucmanic was also ordered to pay Nada Kucmanic $2000 toward her attorney fees. -3- Upon Nada Kucmanic's appeal of the spousal support award, this court reversed the order and remanded it to the trial court with instructions to further consider the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18. See Kucmanic v. Kucmanic (April 16,1992), Cuyahoga App.No. 60205, unreported. On remand, the trial court issued a new order requiring Stjepan Kucmanic to pay $1500 per month in spousal support for three years and five months and $1000 per month for five years and six months. Because the award was retroactive to the date of the divorce, a judgment was entered in favor of Nada Kucmanic for $21,000 in back spousal support. Stjepan Kucmanic was ordered to pay $3,500 toward Nada Kucmanic's attorney's fees. This appeal followed. The issue raised by Stjepan Kucmanic's first assignment of error is whether the trial court properly considered the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18 when making its spousal support award. Instead of considering all the factors listed in the statute, Stjepan Kucmanic argues the trial court considered only the earnings of the parties and their respective mortgage expenses. He also argues the trial court failed to set forth the basis for its award. Nada Kucmanic argues, on the contrary, the trial court properly considered all of the relevant statutory factors and that its award was supported by substantial credible evidence. R.C. 3105.18 lists various factors for consideration in determining spousal support awards. These factors include income, relative earning capacity, age and physical, mental, and emotional -4- condition, retirement benefits, duration of marriage, propriety of outside employment by custodial parent, standard of living during marriage, education, assets and liabilities, educational contributions to the other party, feasibility of obtaining education or job training, tax consequences of spousal support award, lost income production capacity, and other relevant factors. R.C. 3105.18(C). Our review of the record reveals evidence pertaining to all relevant factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C) was presented in briefs submitted to the trial court on remand. In 1990, Stjepan Kucmanic earned over $55,000. Nada Kucmanic earned approximately $9,400. Stjepan Kucmanic was a high school graduate with some trade school experience. Nada Kucmanic had only an elementary school education. The parties were married over 20 years during which they enjoyed a fairly high standard of living. The trial court's order reflected careful consideration of the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C) and the supporting evidence offered by the parties. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of spousal support. Consequently, we overrule Stjepan Kucmanic's first assignment of error. In his second assignment of error, Stjepan Kucmanic argues the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Nada Kucmanic a judgment of $21,000 because Stjepan Kucmanic is unable to pay $21,000 in a lump sum. He argues he fully complied with the trial court's original support award and the trial court's retroactive order of support is punitive. We disagree. -5- The trial court's original order of support was reversed on appeal as an abuse of discretion due to the court's failure to adequately consider the statutory factors in determining the amount of spousal support. On remand, the trial court properly considered all relevant factors including the parties' relative incomes and financial situations. Although Stjepan Kucmanic claims he is unable to pay the lump sum award, he presents no evidence to support his claim or to contest the accuracy of the financial information considered by the trial court. Under the circumstances, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Nada Kucmanic $20,000 in back spousal support. Kucmanic's second assignment of error is overruled. Finally, Stjepan Kucmanic argues the award of attorney fees constituted an abuse of discretion because Nada Kucmanic made no showing the amount claimed as attorney fees was reasonable or Stjepan Kucmanic was able to pay them. R.C. 3105.18(H) authorizes the award of reasonable attorney fees in divorce proceedings if the court determines the other party is able to pay the awarded fees. The decision to award attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court. Nori v. Nori (1989), 58 Ohio App.3d 69. In the hearing before the trial court on remand, Nada Kucmanic presented testimony, cancelled checks, and itemized statements indicating legal fees of over ten thousand dollars. Stjepan Kucmanic produced no evidence the fees were unreasonable. Under the circumstances, we find the trial court's award of $3500 in attorney fees was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Finding no abuse of -6- discretion, we overrule Stjepan Kucmanic's third assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. -7- 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 Common Pleas Court 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. Exceptions. DYKE, J., and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement 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. .