Banjoko v. Banjoko
2013 Ohio 2566
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Marital status: Valerie E. Banjoko and Samuel O. Banjoko married January 2000 with no children; divorce filed September 2010; final judgment and decree in February 2012 (amended June 22, 2012).
- Retirement accounts: Mr. Banjoko held UPS-related retirement accounts; funds allegedly originated pre-marriage and were moved among accounts after separation; limited contributions during marriage.
- Evidence at hearings: Mr. Banjoko testified funds were deposited prior to marriage and that after marriage he did not contribute, only moving funds among accounts; Mrs. Banjoko did not prove any marital deposits into these accounts.
- Trial court findings: Allianz and United Planners accounts were deemed marital property with partial or full awards to Mrs. Banjoko; Citicorp/CitiGroup account treated as marital or pre-marital depending on the accounting; circumstances led to a motion for relief from judgment.
- Post-judgment development: motion for relief from judgment acknowledged confusion over number and source of Citicorp accounts; June 2012 amended judgment recharacterized ownership of Citicorp account; appeal challenged treatment of Allianz and United Planners accounts as marital property.
- On appeal, court sustained assignment of error and held Allianz and United Planners accounts were actually the separate property of Mr. Banjoko, reversing the trial court’s division for these accounts and affirming the remainder of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allianz and United Planners were marital property | Banjoko (plaintiff) argues funds originated from premarital UPS accounts. | Banjoko (defendant) contends the accounts were marital due to joint management of funds during marriage. | The court held these accounts were separate property; reversed accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Snyder, 2002-Ohio-2781 (Ohio Court of Appeals) (burden-shifting proof in separate-vs-marital property)
- Helton v. Helton, 114 Ohio App.3d 683 (Ohio App.2d Dist. (1996)) (burden of proof for separate property and appreciation)
- Peck v. Peck, 96 Ohio App.3d 731 (Ohio App.3d Dist. (1994)) (preponderance to prove property is separate; burden shifts upon proof)
- Koegel v. Koegel, 69 Ohio St.2d 355 (Ohio) (abuse of discretion standard in property division)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio) (abuse of discretion definition)