Adkins v. Adkins
2017 Ohio 8636
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Regina and Curtis Adkins married in 2000, had two children, and separated; Regina filed for divorce in 2015.
- Trial addressed custody/parenting time, valuation and allocation of the marital residence, and debts.
- Dispute over house value: Butler County Auditor valuation $118,510; Father claimed a $140,000 offer but had not secured financing.
- Father has documented alcohol issues (addiction assessment, witnesses describing heavy drinking); temporary mutual restraining order and allegations of physical conduct and GPS tracking of Mother's vehicle.
- Trial court named Mother residential parent/legal custodian, awarded Father standard parenting time, retained the house to Mother at fair market value $118,510, and divided debts; Father appealed three rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shared parenting should be ordered | Mother argued custody award to primary caregiver (her) was in children’s best interest given Father’s alcohol issues and poor cooperation | Father sought shared parenting; argued court erred by denying shared plan without explicit findings on cooperation or best interest | Court affirmed Mother as residential parent; trial court considered R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)/(2) factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Valuation of marital residence | Auditor value $118,510 supported fair market value; Mother endorsed auditor figure | Father argued his $140,000 offer/support showed higher market value | Court accepted auditor/Mother valuation; Father’s $140,000 claim lacked financing, credibility, and evidentiary support |
| Awarding possession of marital residence | Mother (primary custodial parent) should retain family home for children’s stability; home had little equity and mortgage | Father argued he should get house because he allegedly would pay more | Court awarded house to Mother; considered R.C. 3105.171 factors (custody, children’s stability, encumbrance) and did not abuse discretion |
| Sufficiency of trial court’s reasoning on shared parenting | Mother relied on record facts (alcohol, communication, limited Father contact) to justify award | Father claimed court needed explicit findings that parents couldn’t cooperate or specific best-interest explanation for denying shared parenting | Court’s record-based findings satisfied statutory factors; no further specific wording required—no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Albrecht v. Albrecht, 2015-Ohio-4916 (discussion of best-interest as primary concern in parental allocation)
- Bristow v. Bristow, 2010-Ohio-3469 (trial court must consider R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors)
- Denier v. Carnes-Denier, 2016-Ohio-4998 (additional factors for shared parenting under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2))
- Gibson v. Gibson, 2016-Ohio-4996 (abuse-of-discretion standard in custody appeals)
- Williams v. Williams, 2013-Ohio-3318 (trial court’s broad discretion in equitable division)
- Dollries v. Dollries, 2014-Ohio-1883 (trial court must have evidence to support asset valuations)
- Sieber v. Sieber, 2015-Ohio-2315 (trial court not required to use any particular valuation method)