2014 Ohio 5232
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Denise Beringer appeals a Stark County divorce decree, challenging several property, support, and procedure rulings.
- Marriage occurred May 31, 2007; one child; divorce filings began in 2010-2011 with dismissals, then a new filing on October 11, 2011.
- Temporary orders set child support at $1,800/month and spousal support at $3,500/month.
- Magistrate issued a 9/11/2013 decision granting divorce, designating August 20, 2012 as de facto termination date, and awarding various support and property outcomes.
- Trial court approved the magistrate’s decision with four exceptions and later adopted the decree on 12/2/2013 after objections were resolved.
- Judgment affirmed on appeal, with all five assignments of error overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate de facto termination date of marriage | Beringer contends March 25, 2013 (hearing date) should be termination date. | Beringer argues August 20, 2012 was appropriate termination date given separation and events. | August 20, 2012 affirmed as de facto termination date. |
| Credit for payments tied to ex-spouse and adult children | Credit for payments to ex-wife and adult children should reduce marital property for division. | Such transfers were not to be credited as marital-property reductions; allowed discretion in division. | Court did not abuse discretion; no required credits found. |
| Amount and duration of spousal support | Support amount/duration should be different from magistrate’s award. | Magistrate’s terms were fair; trial court should defer to those findings. | Adoption of $11,477.57 per month for 12 months affirmed. |
| Post-decree vacate date for marital residence | Alleged error in vacate timing prejudicial; should be immediate. | Court allowed reasonable time to find alternate housing. | Order allowing stay until February 15, 2014 not prejudicial; affirmed. |
| Valuation of mixed assets | Expert valuations should be challenged and re-calculated for marital vs. separate components. | Trial court’s accounting and Craig’s analysis reasonable; cross-examination valid. | Valuations and division upheld; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Bowen, 132 Ohio App.3d 616 (1999) (presumption that final hearing date is termination date absent inequity)
- Glick v. Glick, 133 Ohio App.3d 821 (1999) (trial court has broad discretion on termination date)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (1982) (abuse of discretion standard in property disputes)
- Boggs v. Boggs, 2008-Ohio-1411 (5th Dist. 2008) (totality of circumstances in de facto termination)
- Tomlin v. Tomlin, Ohio App. 3d (1987) (marital-property concept and equal partnership)
- Wolfe v. Wolfe, 46 Ohio St.2d 399 (1976) (foundational view of marital-property division)
- Koegel v. Koegel, 69 Ohio St.2d 355 (1982) (deference to trial court in property division)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981) (abuse of discretion standard for property division)
- Sowers v. Sowers, 5th Dist. Licking No. 00CA3 (2000) (credit for premarital debt; use of premarital assets)
- Tilmant v. Tilmant, 5th Dist. Knox No. 2004CA000024 (2005) (credit against marital-property when premarital debt paid)
- Carroll v. Carroll, 2004-Ohio-6710 (2004) (presumption assumptions for addressed factors in spousal support)
- Watkins v. Watkins, 2002-Ohio-4237 (2002) (addresses factors for spousal-support considerations)
- DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (principle on credibility and standard of proof)
- Taralla v. Taralla, 2005-Ohio-6767 (2005) (significance of demeanor and credibility in appraisal)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard for spousal support)