2016 Ohio 5777
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Bryan and Suann Hosler married in 1980, separated in 2012, and divorced after a three-day trial in 2014; all children were emancipated at time of filing. Bryan (Husband) owns Diagnostic Imaging Consultants (DIC) and works as a radiology reader; Suann (Wife) was the other party.
- Parties stipulated as to some items but disputed division of business-related assets/debts, transfers between accounts, and spousal support.
- The trial court found DIC to be a marital asset, divided assets/debts, and awarded Wife $7,000/month spousal support based on an imputed Husband income of $214,212/year.
- Husband failed to timely exchange his completed 2014 tax return; the trial court excluded that document and refused to let a CPA refresh testimony with it.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to make specific credibility/findings on several contested transfers, valuations, and accounting adjustments, and to correct a mathematical error in a buyout figure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hosler) | Defendant's Argument (Hosler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) $9,000 withdrawn from DIC checking | Wife withdrew ~$9,000 from DIC; Husband seeks setoff/credit | Trial court did not explicitly address whether withdrawal was charged against Wife's share | Sustained: remanded for trial court to determine credibility and whether to adjust equalization |
| 2) $21,279.47 from DIC line of credit | That withdrawal should be listed as asset to Wife and charged against her distribution | Trial court ordered Wife to repay the line-item; business valuation accounted for repayment, effectively crediting Husband | Overruled: trial court accounted for withdrawal by ordering repayment and reducing DIC value accordingly |
| 3) Mathematical error in buyout amount | Trial court miscomputed amount Husband must pay if he purchases marital residence | Wife concedes arithmetic error | Sustained: remand to correct calculation and issue corrected entry |
| 4) $8,000 (stock) and $1,500 (BMW proceeds) deposited into DIC | Husband argues these funds were business funds and should be credited pro rata since DIC was divided | Trial court charged Husband with full amounts, finding he personally received benefit | Sustained: remanded for trial court to assess credibility and determine whether proceeds were marital DIC assets |
| 5) $22,393.42 transferred from joint account to Wife's personal account | Husband contends transfers were marital funds and should be charged to Wife | Wife/record lacked testimony about source/use; trial court considered exhibit but had no explanatory testimony | Overruled: no abuse—trial court did not have sufficient evidence to treat transfers as marital asset |
| 6) $32,000 borrowed from Northwest Mutual | Husband says funds paid marital obligations and should be treated as marital asset/credited to him | Trial court found funds were personal/there was no credible evidence they paid marital expenses | Sustained: remanded for trial court to make credibility finding re Husband’s testimony and then allocate accordingly |
| 7) Student loan ($164,000 claimed) | Husband seeks to characterize student loan debt as marital and split it | Wife disputed and trial court found no credible evidence quantifying loan amount incurred during marriage | Overruled: trial court did not abuse discretion in finding lack of credible proof |
| 8) Spousal support—income calculation | Husband disputes trial court’s use of $214,212/year income and resulting $7,000/month award | Husband asserted lower present income; trial court relied on 3-year averages and found Husband not credible | Overruled: appellate court found trial court reasonably weighed R.C. 3105.18 factors and did not abuse discretion |
| 9) Excluding 2014 tax returns and refusing to let CPA refresh recollection | Husband argues witness should have been allowed to refresh with 2014 returns (tendered late) | Trial court excluded late-disclosed exhibits per its pre-trial exchange order and denied use to refresh recollection | Overruled: trial court acted within discretion to enforce discovery order and exclude use in that context |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing whether evidence supports a verdict on manifest weight review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (1996) (trial court's broad discretion to craft discovery sanctions and manage proceedings)