Blacklock v. Blacklock
2012 Ohio 6040
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Tausha Blacklock and David Blacklock married on June 28, 2003 and separated July 10, 2009; they had no children together.
- Tausha filed for divorce on August 3, 2009; Tausha has two daughters from a prior relationship.
- Temporary spousal support of $2,050 per month with a housing offset was ordered on September 30, 2009 and remained until permanent orders.
- A series of post-separation motions and hearings addressed vehicle ownership, arrearages, utilities, and interim attorney fees, including a court-ordered vehicle restitution and transportation support increases.
- David exhausted his BARCO 401(k) during unemployment to pay marital expenses, ultimately cashing it out entirely; the 401(k) balance was then shown as non-existent.
- Final Decree (March 22, 2012) awarded Tausha $700 monthly spousal support for two years and found that three years of the 401(k) were non-marital, but ultimately no share of the 401(k) was awarded to Tausha due to dissipation and timing, while Tausha was not held responsible for the American Express debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 401(k) debt properly characterized and divided? | Tausha contends the 401(k) should be marital and divisible. | David contends the 401(k) funds were exhausted pre-divorce and largely used for marital expenses; portions were non-marital. | Court found no abuse; 401(k) funds were largely depleted during marriage; court denied Tausha a share. |
| Is the spousal support award appropriate? | Tausha argues support should reflect marital standard of living and assets. | David argues temporary support overextended and the marriage was short; no ongoing support or lower amount warranted. | Court affirmed $700/month spousal support for two years as within discretion. |
| Who bears the American Express debt? | Tausha should share responsibility for marital debts incurred during the marriage. | American Express charges were primarily David's, charged while unemployed to maintain living standards. | Court held Tausha not responsible; debt allocated to David as his obligation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donnelly v. Donnelly, 2d Dist. Green No. 2002-CA-53, 2003-Ohio-1377 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2003) (broad discretion in property division; abuse of discretion standard)
- Rambo v. Rambo, 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 19334, 19336, 2002-Ohio-6382 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2002) (credibility determinations on asset dissipation)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 553 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1990) (abuse of discretion standard and reasonableness in decision making)
- Perry v. Perry, 2d Dist. Clark No. 07-CA-11, 2008-Ohio-1315 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2008) (domestic relations spousal support discretion)
- Barco / BARCO Retirement plans context cited in opinion, not applicable (not applicable) (contextual discussion of retirement accounts during marriage)