Binks v. Binks
2019 Ohio 17
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Andrew and Karen Binks divorced after separating in 2015; the trial court issued a final decree on Jan. 17, 2018 following a two-day hearing.
- The trial court found Andrew engaged in financial misconduct: nondisclosure, dissipation, concealment, and fraudulent transfers of assets (some to his father).
- The court divided marital property (including boats, vehicles, and a Cessna airplane) and ordered spousal support to Karen.
- Andrew appealed, arguing (1) the court included property not owned by either party or double-counted property, (2) some valuations lacked evidentiary support, and (3) the spousal-support award was erroneous.
- The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court’s rulings but remanded for correction of a double-counted boat valuation and for revaluation of one boat where the trial court used an inappropriate new-unit price metric.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Andrew) | Defendant's Argument (Karen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court included property not owned by parties / double-counted property | Trial court double-counted a 1987 Sea Ray and allocated property that belonged to Andrew's father | Court properly treated transferred assets as marital because Andrew concealed/ transferred them; one boat reference may be a different boat | SUSTAINED in part: remand to correct double-counting or clarify which boat was referenced; otherwise trial court’s finding that vehicles were marital (despite claimed father ownership) affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred in valuing marital assets (general) | Some assigned values (e.g., Cessna, 1998 Chris Craft) lacked evidentiary support | Values were supported by evidence submitted at trial (affidavit, NADA report); Andrew failed to challenge at hearing | MIXED: Cessna valuation affirmed (no contrary evidence offered at trial); Chris Craft valuation reversed as trial court used a new-unit suggested list price rather than used-boat market value — remand to set proper value |
| Whether spousal support award was erroneous | Argued court should impute more income to Karen, should find Karen ineligible because of cohabitation, and should give more weight to Andrew's medical condition | Court considered statutory factors, found Karen’s earning capacity impaired due to Andrew’s false criminal complaints, found no cohabitation, and found Andrew’s health evidence unpersuasive | AFFIRMED: trial court did not abuse discretion in its spousal-support determinations |
| Standard of review and credibility findings | (implicit) contends trial court erred in fact findings and valuations | Trial court’s credibility findings and factual determinations entitled to deference | Appellate court applied manifest-weight and abuse-of-discretion standards and generally deferred to trial court’s credibility findings; only limited errors required remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (sets manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and directs appellate deference to reasonable fact-findings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)