Kess v. Kess , 2018 Ohio 1370 ( 2018 )

[Cite as Kess v. Kess, 2018-Ohio-1370.]
COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAMES C. KESS : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 17 CAF 05 0029 &
: 15 CAF 10 0076
ROBERTA J. KESS :
:
:
Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court
of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, Case No. 09 DR A 11 0551
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND
REMANDED IN PART
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 10, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee:
NICHOLAS W. YAEGER MICHAEL A. PARTLOW
580 South High St., Suite 200 112 S. Water St., Suite C
Columbus, OH 43215 Kent, OH 44240
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant James C. Kess appeals multiple judgment entries of the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Plaintiff-Appellant James C. Kess (“Husband”) and Defendant-Appellee
Roberta J. Kess (“Wife”) were married on June 19, 1987. Three children were born as
issue of the marriage.
{¶3} Husband filed a complaint for divorce on November 12, 2009. Wife filed her
answer and counterclaim on November 17, 2009.
{¶4} The matter proceeded to trial before the magistrate on June 13, 2014 and
June 16, 2014. The magistrate issued a Magistrate’s Decision on August 27, 2015. The
Magistrate’s Decision included a header stating, “FINDINGS OF FACT and
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,” which was followed by 52 paragraphs reciting evidence
adduced at trial and the magistrate’s recommendations including the parties’ earning
capacities, property distributions, spousal support, and child support. The Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law were followed by 39 paragraphs of the magistrate’s orders.
{¶5} Relevant to this appeal, the magistrate reviewed the parties’ marital and
separate assets. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, Husband filed a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The marital residence was sold by the Trustee. The sale
net proceeds were approximately $64,609.20. Wife received $17,500, Husband received
$12,500, and Husband’s bankruptcy estate received $34,359.20. The magistrate further
reviewed the parties’ personal property, insurance policies, financial assets, and debts as
presented at the trial. The magistrate found Husband was entitled to $105,832.20 in
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 3
assets and Wife was entitled to $86,761.00 in assets. The magistrate distributed all
marital debt to Wife in the amount of $57,668.00. The magistrate recommended Husband
pay Wife a distributive award in the amount of $38,369.60 to equalize the distribution to
$67,462.60 for each party.
{¶6} Also relevant to this appeal, evidence was presented as to the parties’
earning capacities. At the time of the trial, Husband was 51 years old. Husband was
employed at Angelo’s Pizza, a restaurant owned by his brother, as a dining room manager
earning $20 per hour or $41,600 per year. He attended Ohio State University for two
years. Husband has been employed as a fast food cook, construction superintendent,
building equipment and supply sales representative, and food service manager. A
vocational expert testified Husband’s earning capacity was between $49,945 and
$60,278. The magistrate reviewed Husband’s reported wages from 2009 to 2013.
{¶7} Wife was 46 years old at the time of the trial. Wife was a high school
graduate. Her highest earned income was approximately $40,000 as an offset printer.
She stopped working full-time in 2002, but worked some part-time jobs at department
stores. Wife had medical issues which limited her employability. A vocational expert
testified Wife was capable of earning $15,000 to $21,000 per year.
{¶8} The magistrate imputed income to Husband in the amount of $49,945.00
and Wife in the amount of $15,000. The magistrate recommended Husband pay spousal
support in the amount of $750 per month for a period of eight years. The magistrate further
recommended Husband pay child support in the amount of $769.33 per month.
{¶9} On September 2, 2015, Husband filed a Request for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 4
{¶10} On September 8, 2015, the trial court denied Husband’s request for findings
of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the magistrate issued a 20-page
decision that included 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law. For that reason, the trial
court denied the request.
{¶11} The trial court adopted the Magistrate’s Decision on September 11, 2015.
{¶12} Husband attempted to file objections to the Magistrate’s Decision with the
Delaware County Clerk of Courts on September 22, 2015. The Clerk of Courts rejected
Husband’s Objections for filing because it determined the objections were untimely.
Husband filed a motion for leave to file supplemental objections on September 22, 2015.
On September 25, 2015, the trial court denied the motion for leave because it found there
were no objections to supplement.
{¶13} A transcript of the proceedings was filed on September 28, 2015. The
record does not reflect when Husband requested the transcript.
{¶14} On October 7, 2015, Husband filed an appeal of the September 11, 2015
judgment entry in Case No. 15 CAF 10 0076. Husband also filed a Writ of Mandamus to
order the Delaware County Clerk of Courts to accept and file his Objections to the
Magistrate’s Decision. We stayed Case No 15 CAF 10 0076 during the pendency of the
Writ of Mandamus. On January 26, 2017, we ordered the Delaware County Clerk of
Courts to accept Husband’s Objections for filing. We held it was the purview of the trial
court to determine whether Husband’s Objections were timely filed. Husband’s Objections
were filed and backdated as of September 22, 2015. State ex rel. Kess v. Antonoplos, 5th
Dist. Delaware No. 16CAD030010, 2017-Ohio-305. On March 10, 2017, this Court
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 5
remanded the matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining the timeliness of
Husband’s Objections and whether to consider the Objections.
{¶15} Upon the remand of the matter to the trial court, the parties filed briefs on
the issue of whether Husband’s Objections were timely filed. On April 4, 2017, the trial
court ruled Husband’s Objections were not timely filed.
{¶16} Husband filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s decision in Case No. 17
CAF 05 0029. This Court consolidated Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 and 17 CAF 05 0029
for appeal.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶17} Husband raises three Assignments of Error:
{¶18} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR BY DENYING THE APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND BY FINDING
THAT THE APPELLANT’S OBJECTIONS WERE NOT TIMELY FILED AS PROVIDED
IN OHIO CIVIL RULE 53(B).
{¶19} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED
REVISABLE [SIC] ERROR BY ADOPTING THE PROPERTY DIVISION CONTAINED
WITHIN THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AS THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION WAS
NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS
CONTRARY TO OHIO REVISED CODE §3105.171.
{¶20} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN THE IMPUTATION OF INCOME AND CALCULATION OF BOTH
CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT.”
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 6
ANALYSIS
I. Timeliness of Objections to Magistrate’s Decision
{¶21} Husband argues in his first Assignment of Error that the trial court erred
when it denied his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and then found his
objections to the Magistrate’s Decision were not timely filed.
{¶22} Civ.R. 53(D) states, in relevant part, as follows:
(3) Magistrate's Decision; Objections to Magistrate's Decision.
(a) Magistrate's decision.
(i) When required. Subject to the terms of the relevant reference, a
magistrate shall prepare a magistrate's decision respecting any matter
referred under Civ.R. 53(D)(1).
(ii) Findings of fact and conclusions of law. Subject to the terms of the
relevant reference, a magistrate's decision may be general unless findings
of fact and conclusions of law are timely requested by a party or otherwise
required by law. A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law shall
be made before the entry of a magistrate's decision or within seven days
after the filing of a magistrate's decision. If a request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law is timely made, the magistrate may require any or all of
the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(iii) Form; filing, and service of magistrate's decision. A magistrate's
decision shall be in writing, identified as a magistrate's decision in the
caption, signed by the magistrate, filed with the clerk, and served by the
clerk on all parties or their attorneys no later than three days after the
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 7
decision is filed. A magistrate's decision shall indicate conspicuously that a
party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual
finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the
party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion
as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).
(b) Objections to Magistrate's Decision.
(i) Time for filing. A party may file written objections to a magistrate's
decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the
court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted
by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party
may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections are
filed. If a party makes a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions
of law, the time for filing objections begins to run when the magistrate files
a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(ii) Specificity of objection. An objection to a magistrate's decision shall be
specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection.
(iii) Objection to magistrate's factual finding; transcript or affidavit. An
objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically designated as a
finding of fact under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a transcript
of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an
affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available. With leave of court,
alternative technology or manner of reviewing the relevant evidence may
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 8
be considered. The objecting party shall file the transcript or affidavit with
the court within thirty days after filing objections unless the court extends
the time in writing for preparation of the transcript or other good cause. If a
party files timely objections prior to the date on which a transcript is
prepared, the party may seek leave of court to supplement the objections.
(iv) Waiver of right to assign adoption by court as error on appeal. Except
for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the
court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not
specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as
required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).
{¶23} The Magistrate’s Decision was filed on August 27, 2015. It stated it
contained findings of facts and conclusions of law, which was comprised of 52 paragraphs
reviewing the evidence presented at trial and reaching conclusions as to the elements of
Husband’s divorce claim. Within seven days of the Magistrate’s Decision, Husband filed
a motion on September 2, 2015 motion stating he was requesting findings of fact and
conclusions of law pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii). Husband’s request did not state he
was seeking supplemental findings and conclusions. On appeal, Husband contends the
trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for findings of fact and conclusions
of law because he sought more clarity on the magistrate’s findings and conclusions, such
as how the magistrate determined Husband’s imputed income. On September 8, 2015,
the trial court denied Husband’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), objections to the Magistrate’s Decision were due on
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 9
September 10, 2015. The trial court adopted the Magistrate’s Decision on September 11,
2015, fifteen days after the Magistrate’s Decision was filed. Husband filed his objections
to the Magistrate’s Decision on September 22, 2015, 26 days after the Magistrate’s
Decision was issued. By judgment entry, the trial court rejected Husband’s objections as
being untimely filed based on its previous decision to deny Husband’s request for findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶24} Civ.R. 53 does not require a magistrate to issue a decision containing
findings of fact and conclusions law in every case. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii) states, “Subject
to the terms of the relevant reference, a magistrate’s decision may be general unless
findings of fact and conclusions of law are timely requested by a party or otherwise
required by law.” Husband does not contend the Magistrate’s Decision was a general
decision. He contends on appeal he requested findings of fact and conclusions of law to
provide clarity on the magistrate’s recommendations. The plain language of Civ.R. 53
provides no statutory guidance for a request for supplemental findings of fact and
conclusions of law. As noted by this Court in Hutta v. Hutta, 5th Dist. Delaware No.
10CAF040031, 2011–Ohio–3041 at paragraph 15: “If a magistrate has not prepared
findings of fact or has prepared findings of fact that are insufficient, the burden is on the
party objecting to request findings of fact from the magistrate pursuant to Civ. R. 52 and
Civ. R. 53(E)(2). Rush v. Schlagetter (April 15, 1997), Ross App. No. 96CA2215,
unreported.” Digenova v. Digenova, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2015 AP 07 0045, 2016-
Ohio-1080, ¶ 25. Findings of fact and conclusions of law allow the reviewing court to gain
a clear understanding of the basis of the lower court’s decision and to determine the
grounds on which the magistrate or trial court reached its decision. See State v. Jacks,
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 10
5th Dist. Licking No. 99 CA 113, 2000 WL 329740 (Feb. 29, 2000), citing State v. Lester,
41 Ohio St. 2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975). The findings of fact and conclusions of law
should be explicit enough to sufficiently apprise the parties and the court of the grounds
for the decision. See State v. Staats, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00207, 2016–Ohio–2921.
{¶25} A party’s request for findings of fact and conclusion of law pursuant to Civ.R.
52(D)(3)(a)(ii) is a request to the trial court to determine whether the magistrate’s decision
was sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii). This Court
has found it is within the trial court’s discretion whether to grant a request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law. United Studios of Am. v. Laman, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2007CA00277, 2008-Ohio-3497, ¶ 55.
{¶26} In this case, the trial court found the Magistrate’s Decision met the
requirements of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii). The trial court denied Husband’s request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law because it found the Magistrate’s Decision already
contained findings and conclusions on all matters presented in Husband’s complaint and
Wife’s counterclaim. Upon review of its judgment when considering whether Husband’s
objections to the Magistrate’s Decision were timely filed, the trial court found the
Magistrate’s Decision “did not merely regurgitate the evidence presented at trial.”
(Judgment Entry, Apr. 4, 2017). The trial court found the magistrate made specific findings
of fact such as to spousal support and the parties’ usage of marital funds. The trial court
also referred to the magistrate’s conclusions of law as to spousal support, distributive
award, and award of attorney’s fees. (Judgment Entry, Apr. 4, 2017).
{¶27} Our review of the Magistrate’s Decision reveals the magistrate thoroughly
examined and reviewed the elements of Husband’s complaint for divorce and Wife’s
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 11
counterclaim. The magistrate made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as
to spousal support, the parties’ earning capacities, child support, property division,
equalization of the property division, and distributive award.
{¶28} We distinguish the findings of fact and conclusions of law found in the
present case from those analyzed in Waliga v. Goon, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 13-COA-008,
2013-Ohio-5687, cited by Husband in support of his argument. In Waliga, the magistrate’s
decision was issued on March 14, 2013. The magistrate, in his Decision, made the
following findings of facts and conclusions of law: “Plaintiffs have proven their claims for
damages for repairs and back rent by the preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover from Defendants back rent of $1,534.48, cost of repair of damages and
clean up the sum of $2115.00 and reasonable attorney fees of $1,500.00.” Id. at ¶ 27.
The appellant filed a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
magistrate denied the request, finding that he had issued the same. In response,
appellant filed a Motion to Set Aside the order. The trial court overruled appellant’s Motion
to Set Aside the Magistrate's Order of March 27, 2013, finding that the magistrate's March
14, 2013 Decision contained sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. at ¶ 28.
{¶29} We disagreed. We found the magistrate’s decision did not contain findings
of fact. Because appellant made a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of
law, the time for filing objections did not begin to run until the magistrate filed a decision
that included findings of fact and conclusions of law. Without findings of fact and
conclusions of law, appellant would not have known what issues to raise in his objections.
Id. at ¶ 29.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 12
{¶30} In this case, the Magistrate issued 52 paragraphs to explain the findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Husband does not argue the Magistrate issued a general
decision. It appears from Husband’s arguments that he did not agree with the conclusions
reached by the magistrate and adopted by the trial court, but that does not impact the
sufficiency of the findings of fact and conclusions of law issued in the Magistrate’s
Decision for Husband to file objections to the decision.
{¶31} After finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny Husband’s
request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, we next address Husband’s argument
that the trial court erred by finding his objections to the Magistrate’s Decision were
untimely filed.
{¶32} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, “If a party makes a timely request for findings
of fact and conclusions of law, the time for filing objections begins to run when the
magistrate files a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Husband
contends his time for filing objections began to run on September 8, 2015, when the trial
court denied his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law or, in the alternative,
the time for filing objections began to run after the magistrate filed findings of fact and
conclusions of law after his request was made. In its April 4, 2017 judgment entry, the
trial court reviewed the language of the Civil Rule and found the Rule to be unambiguous
that the time to file objections begins to run when the magistrate files a decision that
includes findings of fact and conclusions of law. On August 27, 2015, the magistrate filed
a decision that included findings of fact and conclusions of law. Husband’s objections
were due on or before September 10, 2015.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 13
{¶33} Husband makes no argument the August 27, 2015 Magistrate’s Decision
was a general decision and did not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Husband argues the magistrate’s purported findings of fact and conclusions of law were
insufficient to meet Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii). However, the plain language of Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b)(i) does not allow for that distinction. The Rule plainly states if a party requests
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the time to file objections runs when the findings
of fact and conclusions of law are filed. In this case, findings of fact and conclusions of
law were filed on August 27, 2015. It was Husband’s argument the magistrate’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law were insufficient. The trial court found, and we agree, the
findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii). The
proper remedy in this case would have been to object to the decision announced by the
magistrate. See Morgan Stanley Credit Corp. v. Fillinger, 2012-Ohio-4295, 704 N.E.2d
362 (8th Dist.). While Husband’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law was
pending, Husband could have filed objections to the Magistrate’s Decision within the 14-
day period and supplemented those objections after the trial court ruled on Husband’s
pending request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Husband’s objections to the
Magistrate’s Decision were filed on September 22, 2015, 26 days after the Magistrate’s
Decision was filed and outside the fourteen-day window under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i).
{¶34} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny Husband’s request
for findings of fact and conclusions of law and to find Husband’s objections were untimely
filed. Husband’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 14
II. Plain Error
{¶35} On April 4, 2017, the trial court determined Husband’s objections to the
Magistrate’s Decision were untimely filed. It would not consider the late objections and
the September 11, 2015 judgment entry remained in full force and effect. In Husband’s
first Assignment of Error, we affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Husband’s request
for findings of fact and conclusions of law and to find Husband’s objections to the
Magistrate’s Decision were untimely filed. Husband argues in his second and third
Assignments of Error that the trial court abused its discretion and committed a reversible
error when it adopted the Magistrate’s Decision as to the property division and support
provisions.
{¶36} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that “[a] party shall not assign as error on
appeal the court's adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusion * * * unless the party
has objected to that finding or conclusion * * *.” A party’s failure to specifically object to a
magistrate’s decision does not bar appellate review of “plain error.” In re M.H., 5th Dist.
Fairfield No. 2016 CA 43, 2017-Ohio-1100, ¶ 24. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) further provides:
“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's
adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated
as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has
objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” The plain error
doctrine, however, is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case
involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the
trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial
process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself. King
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 15
v. Cleavenger, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00008, 2017-Ohio-7973, ¶ 12. To constitute
plain error in a civil case, the error must be “obvious and prejudicial” and “if permitted,
would have a material adverse effect on the character and public confidence in judicial
proceedings.” Friedland v. Djukic, 191 Ohio App. 3d 278, 2010–Ohio–5777, ¶ 37 (8th
Dist.). We will herein proceed under a plain error standard of review.
III. Property Division
{¶37} Husband argues the trial court erred as to the property division between
Husband and Wife. He raises five issues with the trial court’s property division: 1) the trial
court’s assignment of $34,359.20 to Husband from the sale of the marital home in the
bankruptcy proceeding; 2) the trial court’s assignment of $1,050.00 to Husband from the
sale of martial property in the bankruptcy proceeding; 3) the categorization of the Sea
Ray Boat as marital property; 4) the trial court’s finding that Wife did not take $18,800.00
in marital funds; and 5) a distributive award to Wife in the amount of $38,369.60 to
equalize the distribution.
{¶38} An appellate court generally reviews the overall appropriateness of the trial
court's property division in divorce proceedings under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St. 2d 348, 421 N.E.2d 1293 (1981). In order to find an abuse
of discretion, we must determine that the trial court's decision was unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v.
Blakemore, 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶39} Pursuant to R.C. 3105.171(B), “[i]n divorce proceedings, the court shall * *
* determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. In
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 16
either case, upon making such a determination, the court shall divide the marital and
separate property equitably between the spouses, in accordance with this section. * * *”
{¶40} R.C. 3105.171(C)(1) further states: “Except as provided in this division or
division (E)(1) of this section, the division of marital property shall be equal. If an equal
division of marital property would be inequitable, the court shall not divide the marital
property equally but instead shall divide it between the spouses in the manner the court
determines equitable. In making a division of marital property, the court shall consider all
relevant factors, including those set forth in division (F) of this section.”
{¶41} To make an equitable division of property, the trial court should first
determine the value of the marital assets. See Eisler v. Eisler, 24 Ohio App. 3d 151, 152,
493 N.E.2d 975 (1985). In performing this function, the trial court has broad discretion to
develop some measure of value. See Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St. 2d 318, 432 N.E.2d
183 (1982). Thus, “[t]he valuation of marital assets is typically a factual issue that is left
to the discretion of the trial court.” Roberts v. Roberts, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-27,
2008-Ohio-6121, 2008 WL 5049808, ¶ 18 citing Berish, supra. Generally, as an appellate
court, we are not the trier of fact. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant,
competent, and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base his or her
judgment. Tennant v. Martin–Auer, 188 Ohio App. 3d 768, 2010-Ohio-3489, 936 N.E.2d
1013 (5th Dist.), ¶ 16, citing Cross Truck Equipment Co. v. Joseph A. Jeffries Co., 5th
Dist. Stark No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911 (Feb. 10, 1982). “Trial court decisions on what
is presently separate and marital property are not reversed unless there is a showing of
an abuse of discretion.” Valentine v. Valentine, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 95COA01120, 1996
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 17
WL 72608 (Jan. 10, 1996), citing Peck v. Peck, 96 Ohio App. 3d 731, 734, 645 N.E.2d
1300 (12th Dist. 1994).
Proceeds from Sale of Marital Home
{¶42} The parties were owners of a marital home mortgaged to Fifth Third Bank.
During the pendency of the divorce proceeding, Husband filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceeding. The bankruptcy trustee sold the marital home, paid the outstanding
mortgage, and the net proceeds from the sale were approximately $64,609.20. Wife
received $17,500.00, Husband received $12,500.00, and Husband’s bankruptcy estate
received $34,359.20. The $34,359.20 was used by the bankruptcy trustee.
{¶43} In its judgment entry, the trial court assigned $64,359.20 as the value of the
marital home. The trial court then divided the martial asset, awarding Husband
$46,859.20 ($12,500 plus $34,359.20) and Wife $17,500.00.
{¶44} Husband contends the trial court erred in assigning $34,359.20 to him
because those funds were used by the bankruptcy estate to settle marital debt. Husband
did not get the benefit of the funds. Husband states the trial court should have either
excluded $34,359.20 from the marital balance sheet or divided the amount equally
between Husband and Wife.
{¶45} The Bankruptcy Trustee’s Final Report stated the trustee realized gross
receipts in the amount of $460,825.11. (Joint Exhibit 2). Administrative expenses were
paid from the bankruptcy estate in the amount of $43,228.34 and other payments to
creditors were in the amount of $372,282.60. (Joint Exhibit 2). Wife argues there was no
resolution at the trial court as to whether the debts discharged during Husband’s
bankruptcy proceeding were marital or separate debt. In the division of marital assets and
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 18
debt, the trial court assigned all marital debt to Wife. Evidence was presented at trial that
the majority of the debt discharged in bankruptcy belonged to Husband’s creditors. (T.
325).
{¶46} Based on the record, we find no plain error for the trial court to assign
$34,359.20 to Husband. Competent and credible evidence was presented at trial that
Husband gained a benefit from the $34,359.20 during his bankruptcy proceeding. The
trial court then equalized the marital debt and assets by assigning all debt to Wife.
Assignment of $1,050 to Husband
{¶47} Husband argues the trial court abused its discretion when it assigned the
proceeds of the sale by the bankruptcy trustee of two pieces of marital property to
Husband. The bankruptcy trustee sold a leaf pick-up machine and tanning bed for
$1,050.00, which the trial court listed as Husband’s asset.
{¶48} As with the assignment of the proceeds of the marital home, we find there
is no plain error for the trial court to assign $1,050.00 as Husband’s asset in order to make
an equitable division of the marital property. The property items were sold by the
bankruptcy trustee and placed in the bankruptcy estate. The trial court awarded Wife the
proceeds from the sale of a lawnmower in the amount of $1,000.00 and miscellaneous
property in the amount of $280.00.
Sea Ray Boat
{¶49} Husband next contends the trial court erred when it found the Sea Ray Boat
was marital property, not Husband’s separate property. Husband testified he used
inherited funds to purchase the Sea Ray Boat. Wife testified the funds to purchase the
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 19
boat came from marital funds out of a joint account. The Sea Ray Boat was jointly titled
in both Husband’s and Wife’s name.
{¶50} The boat was sold by the bankruptcy trustee for $5,850.00 during
Husband’s bankruptcy proceeding. Husband testified the proceeds were used to pay the
bankruptcy and Wife received approximately half of the proceeds. (T. 138). The trial court
found Husband received $3,057.50 and Wife received $2,792.50.
{¶51} R.C. 3105.171(B) states in pertinent part that “[i]n divorce proceedings, the
court shall * * * determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate
property. * * *.” The characterization of property as marital or separate must be supported
by sufficient, credible evidence. See Chase–Carey v. Carey, 5th Dist. Coshocton No.
99CA1, 1999 WL 770172. The party to a divorce action seeking to establish that an asset
or portion of an asset is separate property, rather than marital property, has the burden
of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Passyalia v. Moneir, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2016 CA 00182, 2017-Ohio-7033, ¶ 18 citing Cooper v. Cooper, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14
CA 100, 2015-Ohio-4048, ¶ 45, citing Zeefe v. Zeefe, 125 Ohio App. 3d 600, 614, 709
N.E.2d 208 (1998).
{¶52} In this case, the trial court found Husband did not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Sea Ray Boat was separate property. Husband
testified the boat was purchased with separate funds; Wife testified the boat was
purchased with marital funds. The Sea Ray Boat was titled in both parties’ names and
Husband testified Wife was given approximately half of the proceeds after the sale of the
boat by the bankruptcy trustee. We find no plain error for the trial court to designate the
Sea Ray Boat as marital property.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 20
Wife Took $18,800 in Anticipation of Divorce
{¶53} Husband next claims the trial court did not consider the evidence and failed
to find that Wife received $18,800.00 in cash from marital funds. Husband contends the
trial court should have distributed $18,800.00 to Wife as a marital asset.
{¶54} At trial, W. Dana Lavelle, a certified public accountant, testified on behalf of
Husband. Mr. Lavelle conducted an examination of the parties’ finances. Mr. Lavelle
testified that it appeared from the parties’ financial records and information from Husband
that Wife took $18,800.00 in marital funds in anticipation of divorce. Wife testified she
used the funds to pay the mortgage on the marital home, marital bills, and expenses for
the children.
{¶55} The trial court found the evidence presented did not sustain Husband’s
allegation that Wife took $18,800.00 in marital funds. It is generally recognized that the
trier of fact is in a far better position to observe the witnesses' demeanor and weigh their
credibility. Passyalia v. Moneir, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2016 CA 00182, 2017-Ohio-7033, ¶
23 citing Taralla v. Taralla, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2005 AP 02 0018, 2005-Ohio-6767,
¶ 31. We do not find this to be an exceptional circumstance where there is plain error by
the trial court. The trial court considered the parties’ testimony and found Wife to be more
credible.
Distributive Award
{¶56} Husband finally argues the trial court erred in awarding Wife a distributive
award in the amount of $38,369.60 to equalize the distribution of marital assets and debts.
{¶57} R.C. 3105.171(A)(1) defines a “distributive award” as: “any payment or
payments, in real or personal property, that are payable in a lump sum or over time, in
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 21
fixed amounts, that are made from separate property or income, and that are not made
from marital property and do not constitute payments of spousal support, as defined in
section 3105.18 of the Revised Code.” “The court may make a distributive award to
facilitate, effectuate, or supplement a division of marital property. * * *” R.C.
3105.171(E)(1).
{¶58} Having found the trial court divided the marital assets and debts equitably,
we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it made a distributive award to
effectuate the division of marital property.
{¶59} Husband’s second Assignment of Error is overruled.
IV. Spousal and Child Support
{¶60} Husband raises three arguments in his third Assignment of Error. First, he
contends the trial court abused its discretion when it imputed income to Husband in the
amount of $49,945.00 for spousal and child support purposes. Second, he states the trial
court erred by failing to include Wife’s spousal support on the child support computation
worksheet. Third, Husband argues his spousal support obligation is too high.
Spousal Support
{¶61} The trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife spousal support in the amount
of $750.00 per month for a period of eight years. This equates to $9,000.00 per year or a
total amount of $72,000.00.
{¶62} A trial court's decision concerning spousal support may be altered only if it
constitutes an abuse of discretion. Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St. 3d 64, 67, 554 N.E.2d
83 (1990). An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it
implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 22
v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a) through
(n) sets forth the factors a trial court is to consider in determining whether spousal support
is appropriate and reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, terms of payment,
and duration of spousal support:
(C)(1) In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and
reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment,
and duration of spousal support, which is payable either in gross or in
installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors:
(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not limited to,
income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under
section 3105.171 of the Revised Code;
(b) The relative earning abilities of the parties;
(c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the
parties;
(d) The retirement benefits of the parties;
(e) The duration of the marriage;
(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that
party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment
outside the home;
(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage;
(h) The relative extent of education of the parties;
(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not limited
to any court-ordered payments by the parties;
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 23
(j) The contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning ability
of the other party, including, but not limited to, any party's contribution to the
acquisition of a professional degree of the other party;
(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal
support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse
will be qualified to obtain appropriate employment, provided the education,
training, or job experience, and employment is, in fact, sought;
(l) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal support;
(m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted from
that party's marital responsibilities;
(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and
equitable.
{¶63} Trial courts must consider all the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C). This
court has previously held that a trial court need not acknowledge all evidence relative to
each and every factor listed in R.C. 3105.18(C), and we may not assume that the
evidence was not considered. Hutta v. Hutta, 177 Ohio App. 3d 414, 2008–Ohio–3756,
894 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 27 (5th Dist.), citing Clendening v. Clendening, 5th Dist. Stark
No.2005CA00086, 2005–Ohio–6298, ¶ 16, citing Barron v. Barron, 5th Dist. Stark
No.2002CA00239, 2003–Ohio–649. The trial court need set forth only sufficient detail to
enable a reviewing court to determine the appropriateness of the award. Id., citing
Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St. 3d 93, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (1988).
{¶64} This Court has held that in determining spousal support, a trial court may,
in its discretion, impute income to a party based on the party's earning ability under R.C.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 24
3105.18(C)(1)(a) and (b) even if it is determined that a party has no income, depending
on the facts and circumstances of each case. Snyder v. Synder, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2008CA00219, 2009–Ohio–5292, ¶ 30.
{¶65} R.C. 3105.18(C) does not specifically direct the trial court to impute income
to a party who is voluntarily unemployed when determining spousal support as does the
child support statute, R.C. 3119.01(C)(11)(a). Katchmar v. Katchmar, 5th Dist. Fairfield
No. 16-CA-36, 2017-Ohio-2974, ¶ 27 citing Basista v. Basista, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD–
14–076, 2016–Ohio–146, ¶ 17. R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), however, requires the trial court
consider, among other factors, a party's earning capacity, education, mental and
emotional conditions, and ability to seek employment outside the home before
determining what amount of spousal support would be appropriate and reasonable. Id.
citing Collins v. Collins, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 10CA0004, 2011–Ohio–2087, ¶ 46.
{¶66} At the time of the trial, Husband was 51 years old. Husband was employed
at Angelo’s Pizza, a restaurant owned by his brother, as a dining room manager earning
$20 per hour or $41,600 per year. He attended Ohio State University for two years.
Husband has been employed as a fast food cook, construction superintendent, building
equipment and supply sales representative, and food service manager. A vocational
expert testified Husband’s earning capacity was between $49,945 and $60,278.
{¶67} The magistrate reviewed Husband’s reported wages from 2009 to 2013. In
2009, Husband earned $56,994. In 2010, Husband reported earning $8,028 plus
unemployment compensation in the amount of $22,711. In 2011, Husband reported on a
credit application that his gross income was $5,800.00 per month ($69,600.00 per year).
He reported on his taxes that he earned $36,359.00. In 2012, his wages were $42,129.00.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 25
Husband reported no wages for 2013, but reported business income in the amount of
$2,850.00.
{¶68} We find the trial court’s determination of Husband’s earning capacity as
$49,945.00 was not an abuse of discretion considering the evidence presented at trial.
Husband was currently earning $41,600.00 per year. In the past, Husband had earned
over $50,000.00 and possibly over $60,000.00. The amount of imputed income is
$8,345.00 above Husband’s current reported salary. We find no exceptional
circumstances to support the finding of a plain error as to the imputation of income.
{¶69} We further find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the
equitable amount of spousal support based on the evidence presented. See Kunkle v.
Kunkle, 51 Ohio St. 3d 64, 67, 554 N.E.2d 83 (1990).
Child Support
{¶70} In Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St. 3d 142, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989), the Ohio
Supreme Court determined that the abuse of discretion standard is the appropriate
standard of review in matters concerning child support.
{¶71} The statutory child support computation worksheet includes space for the
assessment of each parent's income, which is defined, for a parent who is unemployed
or underemployed, as “the sum of the gross income of the parent and any potential
income of the parent.” R.C. 3119.01(C)(5)(b). “In deciding if an individual is voluntarily
under employed or unemployed, the court must determine not only whether the change
was voluntary, but also whether it was made with due regard to obligor's income-
producing abilities and his or her duty to provide for the continuing needs of the child.”
Weisgarber v. Weisgarber, 5th Dist. Stark No.2015CA00158, 2016–Ohio–676, ¶ 25
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 26
quoting Farrell v. Farrell, 5th Dist. Licking No.2008–CA–0080, 2009–Ohio–1341, ¶ 20.
The decision to impute income to a parent is within the trial court's sound discretion. Id.
citing Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St. 3d 108 (1993); Blakemore.
{¶72} Based on our finding as to the imputation of income for spousal support, we
likewise find no plain error to impute income to Husband in order to determine Husband’s
child support obligation.
Spousal Support Income to Wife for Child Support Calculation
{¶73} Husband contends in his final argument that the trial court abused its
discretion when it failed to include Husband’s court-ordered spousal support obligation to
Wife as income to Wife on the child support computation worksheet. The trial court
included Husband’s spousal support obligation as a deduction to Husband’s income for
purposes of computing child support. We agree with Husband’s argument.
{¶74} R.C. 3119.022 sets forth a basic child support computation worksheet to be
used in calculating the amount of child support to be paid pursuant to a child support
order. R.C. 3119.01(C)(7) provides:
“Gross income” means, except as excluded in division (C)(7) of this section,
the total of all earned and unearned income from all sources during a
calendar year, whether or not the income is taxable, and includes income
from salaries, wages, overtime pay, and bonuses to the extent described
in division (D) of section 3119.05 of the Revised Code; commissions;
royalties; tips; rents; dividends; severance pay; pensions; interest; trust
income; annuities; social security benefits, including retirement, disability,
and survivor benefits that are not means-tested; workers' compensation
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 27
benefits; unemployment insurance benefits; disability insurance benefits;
benefits that are not means-tested and that are received by and in the
possession of the veteran who is the beneficiary for any service-connected
disability under a program or law administered by the United States
department of veterans' affairs or veterans' administration; spousal support
actually received; and all other sources of income. * * *.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶75} In Worley v. Worley, 5th Dist. Licking No. 06-CA-63, 2007-Ohio-252, this
Court reviewed an appeal where the trial court failed to subtract spousal support from the
appellant/obligor’s income and include the spousal support in the appellee/obligee’s
income on the child support computation worksheet. We held:
[W]e agree with the reasoning of the Second District Court of
Appeals, which stated:
“We conclude that in enacting R.C. Chapter 3119, the General
Assembly has codified the common sense notion that in determining the
relative income of the parents, spousal support paid from one parent to the
other should be included in the obligee's income, and excluded from the
obligor's income.” Posadny v. Posadny (Feb. 22, 2002), 2nd Dist. No.
18906.”
Pursuant to R.C. 3119.02, the trial court should have subtracted the
spousal support award from appellant's income when calculating his child
support obligation. Likewise, the spousal support award should have been
included in the calculation of appellee's gross income, pursuant to R.C.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 28
3119.07(C)(7). Pelger v. Pelger (Nov. 14, 2005) Stark App.
No.2005CA00075. We recognize the statute uses the language “actually
received” and “actually paid” but conclude child support calculations should
include those amounts ordered and anticipated to be paid in the instant,
subject order. * * * To hold otherwise would result in additional proceedings
for modification based on the obligor's compliance with the instant, subject
order. In the event of noncompliance, contempt of court or modification
upward may provide the appropriate remedy.
Id. at ¶ 25-27.
{¶76} We agree with Husband the trial court committed a plain error as to the
calculation of Wife’s gross income when the trial court failed to include spousal support
on the child support computation worksheet. Husband’s third Assignment of Error is
overruled in part and sustained in part. We remand the matter to the trial court for a
redetermination of Husband’s child support obligation.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 15 CAF 10 0076 & 17 CAF 05 0029 29
CONCLUSION
{¶77} Based upon the foregoing, Husband’s first and second Assignments of
Error are overruled. Husband’s third Assignment of Error is overruled in part and
sustained in part. We remand the matter to the trial court for a redetermination of
Husband’s child support obligation.
By: Delaney, J.,
Wise, John, P.J. and
Baldwin, J., concur.