Chahdi v. Elhassan, 2019 Ohio 4472

Amina Chahdi and Ali Elhassan married in October 2013; they lived in a Columbus condominium (Berrywood Drive).
Ali purchased the condominium in 2005, quitclaimed it to his brother Jaber in June 2012, Jaber quitclaimed it to brother Nidal in Jan 2015, and Nidal transferred title to Chahdi in August 2016 (during the marriage).
At divorce, the sole disputed issue was whether the Berrywood property was marital property or separate property.
Trial court held the property was Ali’s separate property (because he originally acquired it pre-marriage) and ordered Chahdi to quitclaim it to Ali.
On appeal, Ali argued the transfer history reflected an oral trust (he the beneficiary) used to keep the property out of creditors’ reach; Chahdi argued the property was marital or, alternatively, a gift to her.
The appellate court concluded the property was marital (trial court erred in treating it as Ali’s separate property), rejected the gift and trust theories, reversed, and remanded for an equitable division under R.C. 3105.171.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chahdi)	Defendant's Argument (Elhassan)	Held
Whether the Berrywood property is marital or Ali's separate property	Property became Chahdi's during the marriage (title transferred to her in Aug 2016) and is therefore marital	Property is Ali's separate property because he acquired it before marriage	Reversed: property is marital; trial court erred in treating it as Ali's separate property
Whether the 2016 transfer to Chahdi was a gift making it her separate property	The transfer was a gift to her (separate property under R.C. 3105.171(A)(6)(a)(vii))	Transfer was intended to protect the property for Ali and was not a gift to only Chahdi	Held not a gift to only Chahdi (manifest weight supports transfer intended to benefit both); not separate property as a gift
Whether Ali retains equitable ownership via an oral trust (making it his separate property)	N/A (Chahdi disputes trust claim)	An oral trust was created; Ali is the trust beneficiary and thus equitable owner	Rejected: alleged trust invalid because created to defraud creditors and thus unenforceable
Whether trial court abused its discretion by failing to equitably divide the property	Trial court should have applied R.C. 3105.171(C) to divide marital property equitably	Trial court already assessed equities in awarding property to Ali	Court held trial court erred: it never applied marital-division statute because it mischaracterized property; remanded to divide under R.C. 3105.171(C)

Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 2003) (sets forth equitable-division principle that marital property is to be divided equally unless inequitable)
State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner's Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2017) (statutory-construction: apply plain meaning unless it produces an absurd result)
Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2016) (statutory interpretation: courts must apply unambiguous statutory language as written)