Hercutt v. Hercutt, 2012 Ohio 206

Sue Hercutt filed for divorce after 41+ years of marriage; Terry Hercutt answered and a trial ensued in 2010 on disputed assets and support.
Parties reached agreement on some assets; the trial addressed remaining items including vehicles and other personal property.
Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce issued July 25, 2011, dividing assets and ordering $500/month spousal support to Sue.
Two vehicles (1969 Ford truck and 1979 Yamaha motorcycle) were omitted from the decree despite record agreement; clerical error acknowledged.
Disputed items included metal break, welding equipment, air compressor; credibility and ownership contested among the spouses and others.
Court retained jurisdiction over spousal support; language in the decree about duration vs. amount created inconsistency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Omission of Ford truck and Yamaha motorcycle from decree	Omission was clerical; parties agreed on disposition and sale proceeds should be allocated to Terry.	Agreement contemplated these items; omission was an oversight.	Remand to correct decree to reflect vehicle disposition and Yamaha proceeds.
Right of first purchase or sale of Yamaha motorcycle	Hercutt should have had opportunity to purchase before sale.	No evidence of an agreed right or desire to purchase by Hercutt.	No basis to find error; court did not need to grant first purchase right.
Naming confusion of third-party claimant (Sean/Martin) in decree	Reference to Sean/Martin could create ambiguity.	Identified as the same person; no prejudice in decree.	Decree's harmless reference was not erroneous; no prejudice shown.
Taxing and classification of disputed metal break, welding equipment, and air compressor	Equipment was marital property; values and ownership were misattributed.	Items were non-marital or borrowed; ownership disputed.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; credited Mrs. Hercutt and found marital property supported by record.
Retention of jurisdiction over spousal support (amount and duration)	Judgment language inconsistent; court should reserve both amount and duration.	Language allegedly limits jurisdiction to amount only.	Remand to clarify retention of jurisdiction over both amount and duration.

State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007-Ohio-2202) (appellate credibility determinations and deference to trial court findings)