Cooper v. Cooper, 2013 Ohio 4433

Lisa M. Cooper (Wife) filed for divorce in Dec. 2011 after separation in Oct. 2011; hearing held Oct. 16, 2012; decree entered Mar. 7, 2013.
Husband (Patrick Cooper) had taken out student loans in his name from 2006–2010 to pay for adult son Scott’s college; balance shown ~$116,058; Wife gave no testimony about the loans.
Husband withdrew $40,101.21 from his Ford retirement account in July 2011 and deposited the sum into CoCo Perle Properties, Inc., a company formed to develop rental property; some funds paid mortgage ($19,332.85), BeneTrends ($3,995), and $877.95 remained; ~ $15,904.31 was unaccounted for.
Trial court found student loans were Husband’s separate debt, treated $40,101.21 withdrawal as marital but credited each spouse half of the accounted-for withdrawals and found Husband received benefit of the unaccounted-for funds, ordering Husband to pay Wife $20,548.50.
On appeal Husband challenged (1) classification of student loans as separate debt, (2) finding he could not account for $15,904.31, and (3) trial court’s failure to allocate responsibility for dissolving CoCo Perle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wife)	Defendant's Argument (Husband)	Held
1) Are student loans taken out by Husband for adult child marital or separate debt?	Loans were Husband’s separate obligation (court below).	Loans were incurred during marriage for joint benefit (education) and thus marital; Wife gave no rebuttal.	Reversed: loans are marital; trial court erred in finding them Husband’s separate debt.
2) Did Husband fail to account for $15,904.31 withdrawn from his retirement?	Trial court found $15,904.31 unaccounted for and included that benefit in property division.	Husband traced full withdrawal into CoCo Perle account and claimed funds were used for corporate purposes.	Affirmed: competent evidence supports that only ~$24,196 was used for stated purpose and ~$15,904.31 was unaccounted for.
3) Did the trial court err by not allocating responsibility for winding up/dissolving CoCo Perle?	Trial court implicitly treated CoCo Perle as marital but divided only the checking-account balance.	Husband argues trial court should have allocated dissolution/wind‑up responsibilities.	Reversed and remanded: court must allocate responsibility for dissolution and divide related expenses.

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (explains Ohio manifest-weight standard and that appellate courts must give deference to factfinder unless findings are clearly erroneous)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of trial-court discretionary decisions)