Dollries v. Dollries
2014 Ohio 1883
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2014Background
- John and Patricia Dollries married in 1986; divorced in 2012 after John (Husband) filed in 2011. They own ~33% of Innovative Labeling Solutions (ILS), where Husband was CEO and Wife worked part-time; their adult child is emancipated.
- The parties stipulated to salaries from ILS: Husband $208,000; Wife $35,100. The trial court, however, added $120,000 to Husband’s income as "perks."
- Two contested issues at trial: (1) valuation of the parties’ interest in ILS (Husband’s expert: ~$874,429; Wife’s expert: ~$3,066,000; trial court adopted a adjusted value of $2,446,619.50), and (2) spousal support (trial court ordered $6,500/month for 20 years, later adjusted payment sequencing and added $6,000/month property-equalization payments).
- Trial time constraints prevented Husband from offering rebuttal testimony after cross-examining Wife’s expert; both parties submitted post-trial briefs.
- The trial court imposed protective measures for long payment term: lump-sum payment on ILS sale, yearly financial disclosures, required life insurance, and retained jurisdiction to modify orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dollries/Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Dollries/Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair market valuation of ILS | Trial court erred in adopting Wife's expert valuation; Husband's expert more reliable | Wife argued her income-capitalization valuation (supported by sale negotiation data) was credible | Court affirmed use of Wife's expert valuation as supported by record, but required articulation for adjustments (see below) |
| Denial of rebuttal testimony | Denial prejudiced Husband; he was denied chance to rebut Wife's expert after cross | Court scheduling limited both sides equally; Husband had cross-examination and post-trial briefing | Court found no prejudicial abuse of discretion in denying rebuttal given equal constraints and post-trial briefs |
| Consideration of tax consequences in property division | Court failed to consider tax consequences of dividing ILS interest, as required by R.C. 3105.171(F)(6) | Wife did not dispute statutory requirement; court referenced tax consequences for spousal support only | Court sustained Husband’s claim on this point and remanded for the trial court to expressly consider/apply tax consequences to the property division |
| Spousal support amount and income calculation | Court abused discretion by adding $120,000 in "perks" to Husband's income without evidentiary support | Wife relied on her expert’s reference to adjustments and asserted those justified the addition | Court held spousal-support duration reasonable but sustained Husband’s challenge to the $120,000 addition; remanded for further evidentiary support on perks |
| Extended payment schedule for property equalization (~32 years) | Husband argued he should not be forced to long-term payments | Wife argued long term unnecessary and causes entanglement; trial court considered cash flow and debts | Court affirmed the lengthy payment schedule as within discretion given cash-flow evidence and protective measures for Wife |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Briganti v. Briganti, 9 Ohio St.3d 220 (Ohio 1984) (equity depends on totality of circumstances for valuation)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (explains "weight of the evidence")
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies manifest-weight review standard)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (trial court should attempt to disentangle parties but consider relevant circumstances when dividing property)