The Tenth District Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court’s decision that found that double dipping was not inequitable under the facts and circumstances. This case, Gallo v. Gallo, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-442, 2016-Ohio-3530 (“Gallo II”), had been previously appealed based on the argument that the trial court improperly “double dipped” in awarding spousal support based, in part, on the income stream from a business whose value was included (and divided) as part of the division of marital property. In that appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals clarified that its decision in Heller v. Heller, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-312, 2010-Ohio-6124, that appeared to completely prohibit double dipping, did not, in fact, outright prohibit double dipping; to the extent it did, it was overturned. Instead, the Court found that, “in the interest of equity, trial courts should factor the impact of double dipping into their property division and spousal support decisions.” Gallo v. Gallo, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-179, 2015-Ohio-982 (“Gallo I”). The Court stated that the trial court has “discretion regarding if and how to remedy the double dip, and such decisions will turn upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”

« Back