Ohio Court Affirms Facts of Case Don’t Require ‘Double-Dipping Offset’

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
January 8, 2020
6282 Investment Advice
523930 Investment Advice
marital dissolution/divorce
expert testimony, income approach, net asset value, normalization, double dip, future income, double counting, compensation

Kim v. Kim
2020-Ohio-22
US
State Court
Ohio
Court of Appeals (Ninth District)
Jason Bogniard (husband/appellant); none (wife/appellee)
Schafer

Summary

Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.

See Also

Kim v. Kim

Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.