2016 Ohio 4720
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Paul and Lynae Fiamengo married in 1988; divorce filed by Lynae in 2011 after long separation. Trial occurred 2013–2014; final decree entered May 13, 2015 and appealed by Paul.
- Paul is a real-estate investor (Dover Properties) and owner/operator of Dayton Window & Door Co.; he bought many rental houses, some before marriage, many during and after. Lynae is a certified teacher who more recently worked as a teacher’s aide and earned $18,309/year at trial.
- Trial court awarded Lynae title to nine rental properties (free and clear) and spousal support of $1,050/month; court imputed Paul’s annual income at $75,000 for support purposes and found his gross business receipts much higher before expenses.
- Paul challenged: (1) exclusion of rental income from parties’ income calculations for spousal support (including failing to reduce Paul’s income to account for loss of rentals); (2) characterization of multiple rental properties as marital rather than his separate property (including purported §1031 like-kind exchanges); and (3) a distributive award of certain properties to Lynae without statutory findings.
- The trial court credited CPA testimony about Paul’s cash flow and found Paul failed to trace pre-marital funds into many disputed purchases; it gave Lynae the marital portion of several properties, awarded Paul traceable separate interests where proven, and retained jurisdiction to modify support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lynae) | Defendant's Argument (Paul) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have included rental income from the nine properties in Lynae’s gross income and deducted that income from Paul’s income when computing spousal support | Court should consider actual present income; Lynae argued her award and expected rental income were properly factored into support analysis by the trial court | Paul argued the rental income Lynae will receive should have been counted as her income for support and deducted from his income because he lost those rentals | Held: No abuse of discretion — court considered expected rental income and other statutory factors, imputed $75,000 to Paul (after considering his cash flow and post-de facto purchases) and set support at $1,050/mo, retaining jurisdiction for modification. |
| Whether certain properties (2604 Wayne, 1140 Share, 1222 Holly; 3111 E. 5th; 616 St. Nicholas) were separate (pre-marital via §1031 exchanges) or marital; burden and traceability | Lynae argued properties (acquired during marriage) were marital and subject to equitable division unless Paul proved traceability to separate funds | Paul argued the purchases were like-kind §1031 exchanges or otherwise funded by pre-marital Connecticut property sales and therefore his separate property | Held: No abuse — trial court found Paul failed to trace full purchase funds to pre-marital property; court awarded Paul the limited separate equity it could trace but treated the remainder as marital and split/equitable awarded accordingly. |
| Whether trial court erred in making distributive awards of 1140 Share Drive and 3111 E. Fifth to Lynae without R.C. 3105.171(D) findings | Lynae maintained these awards were part of equitable division of marital property | Paul argued a distributive award (from separate property) requires statutory findings under R.C. 3105.171(D) | Held: No error — court concluded the properties were marital (not separate) except for the proved small separate interests; therefore R.C. 3105.171(D) did not apply and no distributive-award findings were required. |
| Whether 1832 Pinecrest (and other disputed addresses) should be treated as separate property under §1031 like-kind exchange evidence | Lynae argued Pinecrest and similar properties were marital (acquired during marriage) | Paul relied on tax documents claiming like-kind exchanges from pre-marital Connecticut properties to characterize them as separate | Held: No abuse — trial court found the tax documents ambiguous (missing addresses, inconsistent descriptions), Paul failed to meet the burden of proof/traceability, so Pinecrest and others were deemed marital or only partially traceable as separate. |
Key Cases Cited
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (defines abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable; decision must be supported by a sound reasoning process)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (trial court must state basis for property division and support awards sufficiently to permit appellate review)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (appellate deference to trial-court credibility findings because trial judge observes witnesses)
- Peck v. Peck, 96 Ohio App.3d 731 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (party asserting separate-property status bears burden of proof)