Homol v. Homol, 2012 Ohio 6272

Married September 20, 2008; no shared children; both have children from prior relationships.
Kimberly Homol (plaintiff-appellee) filed for divorce August 1, 2011; Johnny Homol (defendant-appellant) did not answer but appeared at final hearing; represented by counsel at hearing.
Property consisted of appellee's personal possessions (worth about $4,000–$4,845) and three vehicles; no marital home or pension.
October 2011 hearing involved return of appellee’s possessions; appellant admitted failing to comply with prior order; items not returned.
November 7, 2011 final divorce hearing resulted in lump-sum spousal support of $6,000 (two $3,000 installments) and sale of the motorcycle with proceeds to appellee; other vehicles allocated between parties.
Final decree filed November 18, 2011; appeal filed December 5, 2011; motion for stay denied December 27, 2011.
Appellant’s brief was deemed noncompliant under App.R. 16; court noted frivolousness and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is procedurally proper	Homol argues issues and errors to reconsider.	Homol’s brief is noncompliant and not worth reviewing.	Appellate review limited due to noncompliant brief; court analyzes merits but affirms.
Whether the trial court properly awarded spousal support	Support unfairly or improperly calculated.	Court abused discretion in spousal support.	No abuse of discretion; lump-sum spousal support appropriate given circumstances.
Whether the division of property and debts was proper	Appellee’s property was mischaracterized and misallocated.	Court correctly classified assets as appellee’s separate property and allocated others.	Record supports the characterization and distribution; affirmed.
Whether service and procedure issues affected the outcome	Possible service defects and rights violations.	Any such claims were not properly raised and are waived.	Service properly effected; evidentiary and procedural issues waived; no reversible error.

Drake v. Bucher, 5 Ohio St.2d 37 (1966) (noncompliant briefs may be stricken; dismissal possible)
In re I.T.A., 2012-Ohio-1689 (7th Dist. 2012) (nonconforming briefs may lead to dismissal)
Oyer v. Oyer, 2008-Ohio-2269 (7th Dist. 2008) (pro se litigants held to same standards as counsel)
Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Serv., 145 Ohio App.3d 651 (2001) (civil rights claims must be litigated in separate action)
Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440 (1978) (judge disqualification matters limited to chief justice)