Noble v. Noble , 2019 Ohio 5372 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Noble v. Noble, 
    2019-Ohio-5372
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO                    )                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:                  NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF LORAIN                 )
    WESLEY NOBLE                                           C.A. No.       19CA011472
    Appellant
    v.                                             APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    NAOMI NOBLE                                            COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
    Appellee                                       CASE No.   17DU083033
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: December 30, 2019
    HENSAL, Judge.
    {¶1}    Wesley Noble appeals a judgment entry of divorce of the Lorain County Court of
    Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the following reasons, this Court affirms in
    part and reverses in part.
    I.
    {¶2}    The Nobles divorced after 40 years of marriage. During the marriage, they
    adopted one of their grandchildren, who was still a minor at the time of the divorce. They owned
    one property in Ohio and one in Alabama. Wife had not worked in many years because of
    medical conditions. Husband had worked at a steel plant since before the marriage but had
    retired in recent years. At the time of the divorce, Wife was living in the marital home in Ohio
    and Husband was living in a dwelling that was on land that his family owned in Alabama.
    {¶3}    The trial court generally ordered an equal division of the parties’ assets. It found,
    however, that Husband was unable to completely explain how he had spent over $225,000 from
    2
    his investment account. It also noted that Husband failed to produce any information about one
    of his bank accounts. It, therefore, did not require Wife to pay Husband for his one-half interest
    in the marital home. For spousal support, instead of requiring Husband to make payments to
    Wife, it awarded her one-half of Husband’s pre-marital pension benefits.          It also ordered
    Husband to pay all of Wife’s attorney fees. Husband has appealed, assigning three errors.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
    THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE
    DIVISION OF THE HUSBAND’S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.
    {¶4}    Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to prepare a qualified
    domestic relations order (QDRO) “that awards one-half of the entire portion of his social security
    benefits to [Wife] * * * offset by [Wife’s] social security benefits.” The United States Code
    provides that Social Security benefits “shall not * * * be subject to execution, levy, attachment,
    garnishment, or other legal process * * *.” 42 U.S.C. 407(a). In light of that language, the Ohio
    Supreme Court has recognized that “Social Security benefits * * * are not subject to division in a
    divorce proceeding.” Neville v. Neville, 
    99 Ohio St.3d 275
    , 
    2003-Ohio-3624
    , ¶ 8. Instead, they
    may only “be considered by the trial court under the catchall category as a relevant and equitable
    factor in making an equitable distribution.” Id. at ¶ 11; see R.C. 3105.171(F)(10).
    {¶5}    Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court improperly ordered
    Husband to prepare a QDRO that would award part of his Social Security benefits to Wife.
    Husband’s first assignment of error is sustained.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
    THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING WIFE
    APPROXIMATELY $180,000 MORE IN NET MARITAL ASSETS AND
    3
    AWARDING WIFE ONE-HALF                    OF    THE     ENTIRE      PORTION       OF
    HUSBAND’S TWO PENSIONS.
    {¶6}    Husband next argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it divided the
    marital property. “In any divorce action, the starting point for a trial court’s analysis is an equal
    division of marital assets.” Id. at ¶ 5; R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). If an equal division would be
    inequitable, however, the court may not divide the marital property equally but instead must
    divide it in a manner that it determines to be equitable, considering all of the relevant factors
    including the ones set forth in Section 3105.171(F). Neville at ¶ 5. Because a trial court “has
    broad discretion in the allocation of marital assets, its judgment will not be disturbed absent an
    abuse of discretion.” Id.
    {¶7}    The parties stipulated that the marital home was worth $241,270 and that the
    Alabama property was worth $275,000. The court found that the value of Husband’s dwelling
    was $38,910, and that the value of their three vehicles were $12,000, $16,000, and $20,000. The
    court awarded Wife the Ohio property, one-half of the value of the Alabama property, and the
    vehicle worth $12,000.
    {¶8}    Husband argues that the property division improperly awarded Wife
    approximately $180,000 more in assets than him. If the court had divided those assets equally,
    he would have received another approximately $90,000.
    {¶9}    The trial court awarded Wife more of the marital assets because Husband could
    not entirely explain where he had spent $225,911 from his investment account over the last ten
    years. According to Husband, he used a lot of the funds on his dwelling and the shared Alabama
    property. He testified that he spent $30,000 on the shared land, $50,000 on Amish laborers, less
    than $10,000 on materials and electrical work, $5,625 on gravel, $15,000 on concrete, and
    $16,000 on his dwelling. He estimated that, in total, he spent $175,000 to $200,000 on the
    4
    shared Alabama property. He admitted that he did not only use funds from the investment
    account on the properties, but that it was in combination with his income from his employer. He
    did not estimate what percentage of his expenditures came from the investment account versus
    his employment income.
    {¶10} Husband did not have documentation to support his testimony about his
    expenditures. He was also unable to explain where he had spent the investment account funds
    that he withdrew after he completed construction of the shared Alabama property and purchased
    his dwelling. Husband also failed to provide Wife or the court with any records of a bank
    account that he maintained in Alabama. In light of Husband’s inability to account for his use of
    all of the investment account funds and his failure to comply with Wife’s discovery requests, the
    Court concluded that it was equitable to award Wife all of the equity in the marital home.
    {¶11} Husband argues that the trial court did not consider that he did not receive all of
    the funds from the investment account because some were withheld to be applied to the parties’
    taxes. It does not appear from the record, however, that Husband made this argument to the trial
    court. Husband also argues that the court punished him for not keeping a detailed accounting of
    his construction expenditures over the years. He does not acknowledge, however, that the
    court’s decision was driven in part by his failure to provide all of his current financial records.
    {¶12} Husband also argues that the trial court incorrectly awarded Wife half of all of his
    pension benefits, including half of what he earned before the marriage. He notes that the parties
    had stipulated that he would preserve the pre-marital portion of his pensions by utilizing the
    coverture approach.
    {¶13} The trial court did not award Wife one-half of Husband’s pre-marital pension
    benefits as part of its property distribution. Instead, it awarded them to Wife as spousal support.
    5
    Husband has not developed an argument challenging the trial court’s award of part of his pre-
    marital pension benefits as spousal support and we decline to develop an argument for him.
    Cardone v. Cardone, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18349, 
    1998 WL 224934
    , *8 (May 6, 1998).
    {¶14} Husband’s only argument regarding the trial court’s spousal support award is that
    the court’s order is impossible to perform because it awards Wife half of his pre-marital benefits
    yet retains jurisdiction of the issue of spousal support. According to Husband, it will not be
    possible to modify the division of his pre-marital pension benefits if Wife cohabitates or
    remarries. He does not explain, however, why the court could not issue an order returning the
    property to Husband. Moreover, there might be some other life change, such as Husband or
    Wife returning to work, that could necessitate a modification of the spousal support order beyond
    a modification of the assignment of Husband’s pre-marital pension benefits.
    {¶15} Upon review of the record, we conclude that Husband has not established that the
    trial court exercised improper discretion when it divided the marital property. Husband’s second
    assignment of error is overruled.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
    THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING
    ATTORNEY FEES TO THE WIFE.
    {¶16} Husband also argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to pay all of
    Wife’s attorney fees. Revised Code Section 3105.73(A) provides that, “[i]n an action for divorce
    * * * a court may award all or part of reasonable attorney’s fees * * * to either party if the court
    finds the award equitable.” “In determining whether an award is equitable, the court may
    consider the parties’ marital assets and income, any award of temporary spousal support, the
    conduct of the parties, and any other relevant factors the court deems appropriate.” 
    Id.
     “A trial
    court has broad discretion in considering an award of attorney’s fees, and an award will only be
    6
    reversed upon an abuse of the trial court's discretion.” Schoch v. Schoch, 9th Dist. Lorain No.
    18CA011382, 
    2019-Ohio-1394
    , ¶ 10.
    {¶17} The trial court noted that Husband’s pension and social security benefits had been
    divided equally except for the offset of Wife’s social security benefits. It noted that Wife had
    received the marital home, that Husband had received his dwelling, and that the parties had split
    the shared Alabama property. It noted that Husband had received two vehicles and Wife one
    vehicle. It found that Husband had failed to make two of his spousal support payments and had
    only partially paid two others. It found that Husband had liquidated his entire investment
    account, but that it was before the divorce action and did not violate a restraining order. It found
    that Husband had failed to comply with discovery by not providing documentation of one of his
    Alabama bank accounts. Upon review of Wife’s attorney’s time sheet, it found that Wife’s
    attorney had spent “a substantial amount of time engaging in discovery due to the plaintiff’s non-
    compliance.” In consideration of all of those factors, it awarded Wife all of her attorney fees,
    which it determined were reasonable and necessary.
    {¶18} Husband argues that the attorney fee award was inequitable because Wife
    received a total of $181,360 more in assets, even before the award of fees. Husband notes that
    he did not violate a court order in liquidating his investment account and that the mere fact he
    was unable to prove where all the funds were spent does not warrant the award of attorney fees.
    Husband also argues that the itemization of legal services provided by Wife’s attorney does not
    support the court’s finding that her attorney had to spend “a substantial amount of time” because
    of Husband’s discovery failures.
    {¶19} A review of Wife’s attorney’s time sheet reveals that he spent less than 10 hours
    addressing discovery issues. The trial court found that Husband spent some of his investment
    7
    account funds improving the shared Alabama property but did not specify how much.                 If
    Husband spent only twenty percent of the funds on the shared property and kept the remainder
    for himself, it would roughly equalize the property distribution. We, therefore, conclude that,
    under the particular facts of this case, the trial court exercised improper discretion when it
    awarded Wife all of her attorney fees. Husband’s third assignment of error is sustained.
    III.
    {¶20} Husband’s first and third assignments of error are sustained. Husband’s second
    assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas,
    Domestic Relations Division is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this matter is remanded
    for additional proceedings consistent with this decision.
    Judgment affirmed in part,
    reversed in part,
    and cause remanded.
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
    Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
    this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
    Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
    judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
    period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
    instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
    mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
    8
    Costs taxed to equally to both parties.
    JENNIFER HENSAL
    FOR THE COURT
    TEODOSIO, P. J.
    CONCURS.
    CALLAHAN, J.
    CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART.
    {¶21} I agree with the majority opinion with the exception of the majority’s decision
    not to consider the merits of Husband’s argument that the trial court improperly awarded Wife
    one-half of the premarital portion of his pension, and I respectfully dissent.
    {¶22} As the basis for declining to address this argument, the majority states that “The
    trial court did not award Wife one-half of Husband’s pre[]marital pension benefits as part of its
    property distribution. Instead, it awarded them to Wife as spousal support.” But that is very
    point that Husband’s argument is making. The trial court framed most of its analysis in terms of
    spousal support.    Indeed, under R.C. 3105.18(C), the trial court was obligated to consider
    Husband’s present payments from the retirement accounts, which are in payout status, as income
    for purposes of determining his support obligation. At the end of the day, however, it appears
    that Husband is correct: the trial court did not award support to wife based on this analysis, but
    awarded her an ownership interest in husband’s separate property. This amounted to a property
    division, not spousal support, as evidenced by the fact that the trial court ultimately ordered the
    division of each pension plan by QDRO, saying, “The Court hereby divides the martial assets
    9
    and debts. The plaintiff and the defendant are each hereby awarded the following, free and clear
    from any claim/interest by the other party[.]”
    {¶23} Under these circumstances, it would make little sense for Husband to “develop[]
    an argument challenging the trial court’s award of part of his pre[]marital pension benefits as
    spousal support.” Husband has challenged the trial court’s decision to characterize this property
    division as spousal support, and this Court should address that argument on the merits.
    {¶24} I respectfully dissent.
    APPEARANCES:
    WAYNE R. NICOL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
    JOHN ZALIC, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19CA011472

Citation Numbers: 2019 Ohio 5372

Judges: Hensal

Filed Date: 12/30/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021