Dick v. Dick
2017 Ohio 1135
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Heather and Brent Dick divorced after a marriage with two minor children; Brent is a self-employed business owner and Heather a teacher. Divorce trial concluded after multi-year proceedings and multiple hearings.
- Two businesses (Woodsfield Ace Hardware and Dick’s Furniture Gallery) were transferred to Brent pre-marriage and were found separate property; both parties disputed the marital portion of appreciation.
- Parties each submitted proposed shared parenting plans and sought to be residential parent; an earlier temporary shared schedule had been in place for ~3 years.
- Competing expert valuations were offered for the two businesses (large divergence between experts). Trial court adopted the lower hardware valuation, set the furniture-store value at zero without explanation, and awarded Heather half of the hardware appreciation.
- A $20,000 home equity loan partly funded purchase/renovation of a dance studio awarded to Heather; roughly $11,000 remained; parties disputed allocation of that debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heather) | Defendant's Argument (Brent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by naming both parents co-residential and rejecting Heather's shared-parenting plan | Court should adopt Heather’s shared-parenting plan (or otherwise justify rejecting both plans) | Court reasonably retained shared custody based on history/schedule | Reversed in part — trial court failed to enter statutorily required findings explaining rejection of competing plans; remanded for R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) findings |
| Valuation of Woodsfield Ace Hardware (marital appreciation) | Heather: expert valuation ($274,000 appreciation) should be adopted | Brent: expert valuation (~$63,000 appreciation) is correct | Affirmed — trial court reasonably adopted Brent’s expert valuation over Heather’s (Heather’s methodology deemed inflated) |
| Valuation of Dick’s Furniture Gallery (marital appreciation) | Heather: expert valued $35,000 appreciation; seeks half | Brent: expert testified depreciation of $45,000; seeks none | Affirmed — trial court assigned zero value after discounting both experts; court’s resolution not an abuse of discretion |
| Allocation of home equity loan (~$11,000 remaining) used partially for Heather’s dance studio | Heather: loan proceeds were used for multiple items, not solely her studio; debt allocation to Brent contested | Brent: loan partly financed purchase of dance studio awarded to Heather, so she should bear debt (or give Brent credit) | Mixed — trial court’s allocation to Brent was supported by record (portion benefited assets awarded to him), but court failed to expressly order who pays the loan; remanded to specifically allocate mortgage/home-equity responsibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83 (1994) (trial court has broad discretion in custody determinations)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (1990) (custody awards supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as against weight of evidence)
- James v. James, 101 Ohio App.3d 668 (1995) (division of marital assets reviewed for abuse of discretion)