Haviza v. Haviza
2017 Ohio 5615
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher and Abigail Haviza divorced in June 2015; they share two children (one minor). Abigail was designated residential parent; Christopher received alternate-week parenting time and was ordered to provide child health insurance and pay child support.
- The divorce decree required Abigail to sell a 2008 Ford Expedition within 60 days and directed division of the marital residence (appraised $266,000) and personal property by agreement/assignment lists.
- Post-decree, Christopher moved to reduce child support and filed contempt motions about the Expedition and mortgage matters; Abigail filed post-decree motions alleging parenting-time violations, removal of fixtures/personal property, unpaid mortgage/taxes, and sought to buy the Expedition for $11,000.
- A magistrate hearing (Oct–Nov 2015) and magistrate decision (Jan 2016) addressed sale of the Expedition, recalculated child support (upward to $166.24 with a 50% downward deviation for equal parenting time), found Christopher in contempt for keeping the child for two successive weeks, ordered return/ replacement of certain fixtures/personal property, and allowed Abigail to buy the Expedition for $11,000 (paying Christopher $1,763 net).
- The trial court largely adopted the magistrate's decision (with limited modifications for children’s items). Both parties appealed; Christopher raised nine assignments of error and Abigail cross-appealed four points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Christopher) | Defendant's Argument (Abigail) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for failure to sell Ford Expedition & sale price | Abigail failed to comply with 60‑day sale order; court should find contempt and set a higher buyout value | She made adequate efforts to sell; $11,000 offer from CarMax and KBB supports price | No contempt; sale/buyout price not an abuse of discretion (trial court affirmed) |
| Child support modification | Motion should have reduced or eliminated obligation; parties’ incomes nearly equal, he provides insurance, equal parenting time warrants zero | Court must recalculate under R.C. guidelines; deviation allowed for equal parenting time | Modification appropriate after recalculation; court increased support to $166.24 with 50% downward deviation (affirmed) |
| Parenting‑time contempt | He denied clear and convincing proof of contempt for retaining child two consecutive weeks | Testimony and credibility findings support contempt finding | Contempt finding upheld (magistrate credited Abigail’s testimony) |
| Master bathroom cabinet (cross‑appeal) | (implicit) items were not fixtures or were otherwise disposed of at divorce; court properly declined return | Cabinet was a fixture removed from the marital residence and should be returned | Trial court erred in not ordering return of the master bathroom cabinet; remanded for its return |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1959) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (1997) (trial court child‑support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- James v. James, 101 Ohio App.3d 668 (1995) (trial court has broad, but not limitless, discretion in valuation of marital assets)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (clarifies meaning of abuse of discretion)