2022 Ohio 1303
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Melissa (Wife) and Jonathan Ward (Husband) married in 1998, had four children, and ran a landscaping business that funded a comfortable lifestyle. The couple purchased and renovated a Cuyahoga Falls home in 2011; Wife moved there with the children in 2013 while Husband remained primarily in Virginia.
- Wife filed for divorce in 2016; the original decree was appealed and this Court dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, prompting remand for further findings and valuations.
- On remand the trial court held additional hearings, made detailed findings (including credibility determinations), valued and divided marital property, and issued an amended divorce decree.
- The court found Husband engaged in financial misconduct (selling property in violation of a restraining order), found Wife more credible, and included assigned values for a jet boat/related equipment ($40,000), go-carts/mini‑bikes/ATVs/dirt bikes ($15,000), and the landscaping business (valued at $85,000 based on equipment).
- The property division produced near parity (difference under $5,500), with an order requiring Husband to pay Wife $2,704.03 to equalize; the court also set spousal support using an income finding for Husband of $200,000 (trial) and $214,487.34 (remand hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of personal property (jet boat, jet skis, go‑carts, mini‑bike, ATVs) | Values Wife testified to (boat $40,000; go‑carts $15,000) were credible and supported equitable division | Court improperly used inconsistent valuation dates and relied on Wife's inflated purchase/valuation figures instead of values at remand hearing | Court affirmed valuation; trial court did not abuse discretion—it credited Wife, found Husband evasive and engaged in misconduct, and used available testimony for an equitable division |
| Valuation of landscaping business | Value based on equipment and Wife’s bookkeeping testimony (equipment $75k–$90k; court used $85,000) | Court should have used more current evidence; Husband’s testimony showed lower income/value and subsequent equipment purchases/debt should reduce value | Court affirmed $85,000 valuation based on equipment values, lack of appraisal, Husband’s evasive testimony, and findings of financial misconduct; not an abuse of discretion |
| Spousal support / alleged imputed income | Use Husband’s actual income and legitimate business expenses; do not impute earnings without finding capacity to earn | Court properly considered all R.C. 3105.18 factors, found Husband underreported/obfuscated income, and treated district evidence as showing he earned ~ $200k–$214k | Court affirmed; although it used the word “imputed,” record supports that court found Husband had actually earned those amounts and rejected his undocumented expense claims; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- The opinion principally relied on unpublished Ohio appellate decisions and statutory standards; it did not rely on officially reported authorities (no cases with official regional or national reporter citations were cited in the opinion). (The opinion cited Ohio appellate precedents and R.C. authority for valuation, discretion, and spousal‑support standards.)