Katju v. Bavadekar
2016 Ohio 7970
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Parties married January 26, 2015; appellant Katju filed for divorce Aug. 23, 2015; appellee Bavadekar counterclaimed. Parties stipulated to all divorce terms except grounds.
- Central factual dispute: appellee testified Katju acted callously after she miscarried (May 18, 2015), including asking for a divorce within 24 hours, leaving her in pain while she "passed" the pregnancy, making misogynistic remarks, and secretly recording conversations.
- Katju admitted he retrieved medication but testified he left to take a shower; both parties testified that Katju asked for a divorce shortly after the miscarriage.
- Trial court granted divorce to appellee on the ground of extreme cruelty and later awarded appellee $650 in post-decree attorney fees as sanctions.
- Katju appealed the divorce grounds, corroboration, property division, trial management (order of proof), and the attorney-fee award. Appellee moved for appellate attorney fees; that motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Katju) | Defendant's Argument (Bavadekar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for extreme cruelty | Evidence insufficient; court relied on facts Katju denied | Appellee: testimony (including Katju's admissions) showed conduct destroying appellee's peace of mind | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; testimony sufficed |
| Need for corroboration of appellee's testimony (Civ.R.75(M)) | Appellee failed to present independent corroborating evidence | Appellee: Katju's own testimony corroborated key facts | Affirmed: Katju's testimony corroborated appellee; corroboration requirement satisfied |
| Division of assets and alleged alteration/conditioned consent to decree | Decree terms were conditioned on incompatibility; alleged post-signature alteration — insufficient record or invalid consent | Appellee: parties/counsel acknowledged agreement at hearing; Katju had opportunity to object | Affirmed: no plain error; issue waived by failure to object and record does not support claim |
| Trial court management of testimony (order and timing) | Court rushed testimony, cut off Katju, allowed appellee to testify before Katju rested | Appellee: court controlled order of proof within discretion; Katju did not object at trial | Affirmed: no plain error; court acted within Evid.R.611 discretion |
| Award of $650 attorney fees (post-decree sanctions) | Award arbitrary; no transcript of May 17 hearing to review | Appellee: award authorized under R.C. 3105.73(B); reasonableness not contested below | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; appellant failed to provide record so trial court's action presumed regular |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (domestic relations judgments upheld absent abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain error in civil cases is narrowly applied)
- Cities Service Oil Co. v. Burkett, 176 Ohio St. 449 (1964) (order of proof rests within trial court discretion)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant must ensure record contains materials necessary for review)
- Talbott v. Fountas, 16 Ohio App.3d 226 (10th Dist. 1984) (frivolous appeal presents no reasonable question for review)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 5 Ohio App.3d 94 (5th Dist. 1982) (a party's testimony can corroborate the other party if reliable)
- Ginn v. Ginn, 112 Ohio App. 259 (4th Dist. 1960) (definition: extreme cruelty destroys peace of mind and renders marriage intolerable)