COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73835 RICHARD GERRICK, : ACCELERATED : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND vs. : OPINION : CYNTHIA GERRICK NKA BENDER, : PER CURIAM : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court -- : Domestic Relations Division : Case No. D-175349 JUDGMENT : REVERSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Mary V.G. Walsh 449 The Arcade 400 East Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendant-appellant: Dennis A. Rotman C.A.C. Building 1148 Euclid Avenue, Suite 300 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -2- PER CURIAM: Appellant, Cynthia Gerrick, appeals the trial court's affirmation of a Magistrate's ruling granting appellee, Richard Gerrick, $16,170.00 from an unpaid property settlement, and a one- half offset to his monthly child support obligation against this debt. On April 5, 1988, appellee and appellant were divorced in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The agreement provided for the custody of the child to remain with appellant, as well as appellant giving appellee a second mortgage on the residence in the amount of $10,500.00 with an interest rate of 6% per annum. The decree further provided that should appellant attempt to discharge in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings any obligation hereunder, this court shall retain jurisdiction to make an award of sustenance alimony to plaintiff. Appellant did indeed file for bankruptcy and was able to discharge the $10,500.00 obligation. The parties have stipulated to this fact, as well as the fact that none of the $10,500.00 obligation has ever been paid by appellant to appellee. In March of 1997, after a shuffling of custody of their minor child, appellee returned the child to appellant, and was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $364.00 per month. On March 6, 1997, appellee filed a motion to show cause with respect to appellant's failure to pay the aforementioned $10,500.00 debt. The trial court adopted the magistrate's ruling, and appellant timely filed an appeal. -3- Appellant's sole assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. Appellant argues that the trial court could not maintain jurisdiction over spousal support when none had been issued during the divorce decree, and further erred in offsetting appellee's child support payment with appellant's property settlement obligation. Trial courts have broad discretion to make alimony, property, and sustenance alimony awards. Buckles v. Buckles (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 102, 546 N.E.2d 950. An appellate court should not alter an award absent a finding that the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is found when the trial court's determination was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140. Nor may an appellate court substitute its judgment on factual or discretionary issues for that of the trial court. Poe v. Poe (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 581, 657 N.E.2d 589. The trial court was well within its discretionary powers to retain jurisdiction for the potential award of spousal support. In Aylstock v. Beginzer (June 29, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14325, unreported, the court held: Although R.C. 3105.18(E) does not expressly provide for the modification of spousal support when no spousal support has been ordered initially in the divorce decree, it does not expressly prohibit a modification under those circumstances. Where the trial court has reserved jurisdiction for a reasonable period of time to modify spousal support if its projection of earning ability should prove to be erroneous in the light of the changed circumstances inherent in actual subsequent experience, -4- we conclude that it is consistent with the purposes underlying the statute to permit a modification allowing spousal support when a satisfactory showing of changed circumstances has been made. A contrary holding would require a trial court to award spousal support in a nominal amount to act as a predicate for its reservation of jurisdiction to increase the award in the event of changed circumstances. This would be a cumbersome procedure, since it would involve wage withholding and poundage in nominal amounts. Id.See, also, Labedz v. Labedz (December 30, 1997), Mahoning App. No. 96 C.A. 65, unreported. However, the trial court erred in offsetting appellee's current child support against the prior property settlement award. In Mallin v. Mallin (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 717, 725, 657 N.E.2d 856, this court held that a trial court has no authority to offset current child support against a property division. As a result, since our holding in Mallin still stands, the trial court was unreasonable in reaching its conclusion, and this assignment of error is well taken. Judgment reversed. -5- This cause is reversed for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee her costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, PRESIDING JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE JAMES D. SWEENEY, JUDGE N.B. This entry 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(E) 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 .