Eleanor A. Burkes - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         

          property or spousal support.5  Mr. Burkes, however, argues that             
          judgment entries in the final divorce judgment contain specific             
          differentiation of the items of property settlement and spousal             
          support.                                                                    
               Our reading of the final divorce judgment revealed that the            
          judgment entries did differentiate between alimony that is to be            
          property settlement or spousal support.  For example, Ms. Burkes            
          was awarded $8,160 per month for a term of years as "support                
          alimony", and, conversely, she was awarded a 1989 Cadillac                  
          automobile as "alimony (property division)".  Other examples                
          where the judgment entry designated a division of property                  
          include a $1 million sum payable over a period of years and an              
          individual retirement account.  The term "support alimony" was              
          used for the payment of the monthly support of Ms. Burkes, and              
          the term "additional alimony" is used in other entries that do              
          not contain the "property division" designation.  For example,              
          Mr. Burkes was required to make payments on the Cadillac and all            
          other debts and charges he incurred since the parties' separation           
          as additional alimony.  Likewise, the $60,000 for Ms. Burkes'               
          attorney's fees was designated as "additional alimony".  The only           
          entry that neither refers to alimony nor alimony with a reference           
          to a property division is the one awarding certain real estate              

               5 The parties refer to Hoover v. Commissioner, 102 F.3d 842,           
          847 (6th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-183, as to the state             
          of pre-1991 Ohio law on the term "alimony".                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011