COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70134 RONALD SHEPHERD : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION LOUISE SHEPHERD : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. D-227577 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: TYRONE E. REED (#0030839) 12025 SHAKER BLVD. #575 CLEVELAND, OH 44120 For Defendant-Appellee: JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN (#0038846) BEHRENS & GIOFFRE CO., L.P.A. 1700 TERMINAL TOWER CLEVELAND, OH 44113 - 2 - SPELLACY, C.J.: Plaintiff-appellant Ronald Shepherd ("appellant") appeals from the trial court's award of spousal support to defendant-appellee Louise Shepherd. Appellant raises the following assignments of error for review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING SPOUSAL SUPPORT WHEN IT FAILED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS IN FACT A NEED FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND INSTEAD ADOPTED DEFENDANT'S UNVERIFIED FINDINGS AS THE COURT'S OWN. II. THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DEMONSTRATE THAT DEFENDANT HAS NO NEED FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT. Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. Appellant and Louise Shepherd married on August 21, 1965. Two children, now emancipated, were born as issue of the marriage. On July 28, 1993, appellant filed a complaint for divorce. A previous complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. The trial court granted the parties a divorce on the grounds of living separate and apart without cohabitation for a period of more than one year. Louise Shepherd was awarded the marital home and its furnishings and awarded $600.00 per month in spousal support. The parties earlier agreed that neither had any rights to the other's pension. Appellant's pension had a value of $54,223.48 at the time. Louise Shepherd's pension was valued at $18,760.44. - 3 - Appellant appealed from the trial court's order. In Shepherd v. Shepherd (August 31, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68242, this court held the trial court did not err in failing to establish a termination date for the award of spousal support and that Louise Shepherd did not waive the issue of support in the separation agreement. The court found that the journal entry did not contain sufficient information to allow review of the spousal support award. The case was reversed and remanded on that issue. The trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it stated the factors set forth in R.C. 3105.18 were reviewed. Appellant, a Cleveland School teacher, was found to have an annual income of $50,000.00. Louise Shepherd, a secretary for the Cleveland Board of Education, earns $20,000.00 annually. The trial court found the parties historically have earned extremely disparate incomes and will continue to do so in the future. Louise Shepherd, fifty years of age at the time of the divorce hearing, is of such an advanced age and without a college degree that she has little likelihood of earning a self-supporting income. Further, it would be inappropriate at her age to seek higher education in order to potentially secure a better paying position. The trial court found the twenty-eight year marriage to be one of long duration. It also noted the retirement benefits of the parties were unequal with appellant to receive nearly three times the amount as will Louise Shepherd. - 4 - Based on these factors, the trial court found Louise Shepherd was in need of spousal support and that appellant had the ability to pay an award. The tax consequences of an award were discussed. Appellant was ordered to pay Louise Shepherd $600.00 per month for current spousal support plus an additional $200.00 per month to pay the arrearage of $11,850.00. II. Appellant's assignments of error will be addressed together as both concern the appropriateness of the award of spousal support. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding support as there was no determination of Louise Shepherd's need for spousal support or of appellant's ability to pay the award. Appellant contends the trial court's findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence. A trial court has broad discretion in fashioning an award of spousal support. Bechtol v. Bechtol (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 21, 24. A court should be guided by the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) in making the award. Holcomb v. Holcomb (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 128. The trial court must set forth a factual basis or rationale which supports the award of spousal support. Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93, at paragraph two of the syllabus. A reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion. Holcomb, supra, at 131. An abuse of discretion must indicate that the trial - 5 - court's attitude was unreasonable, unconscionable or arbitrary. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217. A review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of facts. There is evidence of both parties' current and historical incomes, retirement benefits, age, length of the marriage, educations and appellant's ability to pay. The trial court carefully reviewed all of the factors set forth in R.C. 3105.18(C). Appellant also argues there is no evidence of Louise Shepherd's need for spousal support. Need is a relative term which may vary depending upon the situation presented to the trial court and can fluctuate from case to case. Adams v. Adams (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 419, 421. A party should receive sufficient spousal support to bring him or her to a reasonable standard of living, comparable to the standard maintained during the marriage. Addy v. Addy (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 204. Louise Shepherd could not maintain a standard of living anywhere near to that attained during the marriage without an award of spousal support. All of the trial court's findings of fact support a finding of need. Appellant earns more than twice what Louise Shepherd earns and has consider- ably more in retirement benefits. Appellant acknowledged at the divorce hearing that Louise Shepherd could not support the household on her income. There was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find Louise Shepherd needed support of $600.00 per month. - 6 - The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding spousal support to Louise Shepherd. Appellant's first and second assignments of error lack merit. 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. SARA J. HARPER, J. and JOSEPH J. NAHRA, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY CHIEF JUSTICE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .