Kaydo v. Kaydo, 2022 Ohio 4055

Parties married in 1991; three children. Family lived in Ohio, then the family moved to Pensacola, Florida in 2014 and purchased a Florida home.
In December 2015, wife (Karen Kaydo) returned to the Ohio residence with two children, removed the Ohio house from market, and later filed for divorce in Lake County on June 16, 2016 alleging she had been an Ohio resident for >6 months.
Husband (Mark Kaydo) moved to dismiss for lack of Ohio residency jurisdiction but later withdrew the motion and never filed an answer; case proceeded to a multi-day magistrate trial (2017–2018).
Magistrate found jurisdiction (wife met six‑month residency), awarded the Ohio residence to wife, treated a 1968 Chevelle as marital property, and assigned several monetary obligations to husband; magistrate issued a detailed decision in December 2019.
Trial court overruled most objections in December 2021, ordered wife’s counsel to prepare a proposed final entry; husband failed to timely object to the circulated proposed entry, court filed the divorce judgment on February 28, 2022. Husband appealed raising four assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Subject‑matter jurisdiction (six‑month residency)	Kaydo alleged bona fide Ohio residency >6 months before filing.	Mark: wife was not an Ohio resident for six months prior (residency began Jan 2016).	Complaint allegations were sufficient; husband withdrew dismissal motion and failed to answer, effectively admitting residency; court had jurisdiction.
2) Increase in financial obligations ($36,567.05)	Wife/magistrate: obligations reflect magistrate’s decision and final entry conforms.	Mark: final entry improperly increased his obligations beyond trial court’s December 2021 entry.	Husband waived challenge by failing to object to proposed entry; amounts match magistrate’s decision; no plain error shown.
3) Characterization of 1968 Chevrolet Chevelle	Kaydo: Chevelle was marital property (purchased with marital funds).	Mark: Chevelle was an inter vivos gift from wife (his separate property).	Trial court’s finding that no donative intent existed is supported by competent, credible evidence; Chevelle is marital property.
4) Award of Ohio residence / immediate sale	Kaydo obtained house in magistrate’s division and trial court adoption.	Mark: house should be awarded to him or ordered sold immediately.	Argument waived for failure to object to magistrate’s decision; no plain‑error claim presented; award affirmed.

Barth v. Barth, 862 N.E.2d 496 (Ohio 2007) (defines residency/domicile requirement under R.C. 3105.03)
Coleman v. Coleman, 291 N.E.2d 530 (Ohio 1972) (resident means domiciliary residence with intent to make Ohio permanent home)
Beatrice Foods Co. v. Porterfield, 282 N.E.2d 355 (Ohio 1972) (parties may stipulate facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction)
Pratts v. Hurley, 806 N.E.2d 992 (Ohio 2004) (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be challenged any time)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (Ohio 1997) (plain‑error doctrine in civil appeals is disfavored and limited to exceptional circumstances)
State v. Apanovitch, 121 N.E.3d 351 (Ohio 2018) (standard of review for subject‑matter jurisdiction is generally de novo)
State v. DeHass, 227 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)