Budd v. Budd
2013 Ohio 2170
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Married in May 1976; three children who were emancipated at the time of divorce.
- Parties separated in 2004; Husband filed for divorce; Wife answered and counterclaimed.
- 2005 hearing; parties agreed to property division and waived spousal support; Husband submitted an entry without Wife’s signature, which the court adopted, granting the divorce in 2006.
- Wife moved for relief; new trial held in 2006; judge recused after ex parte communication; a new judge and attorney were substituted.
- 2008 decision on assets ordered Wife to pay Husband spousal support; this Court previously reversed for misdating the termination date and required remand to use the correct date.
- On remand, updated pension information was considered; the trial court’s asset values and division were challenged on appeal for missing Joint Exhibit 1 and misapplication of the governing statutory framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the property division was erroneous and inequitable. | Wife argues the division relied on missing or misapplied exhibits and inconsistent values. | Budd asserts the trial court properly valued assets and considered controlling dates, but the record shows discrepancies. | First assignment sustained; remand required to redivide property using the correct exhibits and values. |
| Whether using the November 9, 2006 termination date for asset values was proper. | Wife contends the court should base values on the factual termination date; the court used the 2004 appraisal date. | Husband defends the court’s exercise consistent with prior remand. | Second assignment overruled; the court must divide assets using values from the November 2006 hearing if Joint Exhibit 1 supports it. |
| Whether marital property division and spousal support were impermissibly mingled. | Wife contends the court merged distributive awards with spousal support contrary to statute. | Budd acknowledges potential issues but argues spousal support may be addressed after proper property division. | Not addressed on the merits; remand to first properly redivide property before deciding spousal support. |
| Whether the spousal support award relied on outdated figures (2008) rather than the de facto termination date. | Wife argues support should reflect the 2006 termination date values. | Husband contends the 2008 values were appropriate given the remand posture. | Not addressed; post-remand proceedings required to set proper support after proper property division. |
| Whether Husband’s voluntary unemployment finding should affect support. | Wife contends the court should consider employment status per 3105.18. | Husband’s employment status was not finally determined due to remand. | Not addressed; remand to reconsider after proper division and evidence on unemployment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio Supreme Court 1982) (addresses the determination of the termination date for purposes of asset valuation)
- Vincent v. Vincent, 1991 WL 231563 (Unpublished Ohio Appellate 1991) (discusses proper sequencing of property division and spousal support)
- Jendrusik v. Jendrusik, 2001 WL 1667871 (Ohio 7th Dist. 2001) (discusses commingling of distributive awards and spousal support)
- Krisher v. Krisher, 82 Ohio App.3d 159 (Ohio App.3d 1992) (supports separation of property division from spousal support)
- McMahon v. McMahon, 2002-Ohio-3378 (Ohio App.3d 2002) (statutory scheme requires equitable property division prior to spousal support)
- Hines v. Hines-Ramsier, 2010-Ohio-2996 (9th Dist. 2010) (acknowledges broad discretion in property divisions in domestic cases)