Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick
2011 Ohio 443
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Married April 17, 1993; three children: J.K. (1995), J.K. (1999), J.K. (2002).
- They separated January 17, 2006; Jane Kilpatrick filed for divorce March 22, 2006; Joel Kilpatrick answered with counterclaim.
- Trial in 2008; Guardian ad Litem appointed;Temporary orders issued October 9, 2006.
- Appellant allegedly withdrew $34,648.41 from joint accounts and cashed out retirement funds during pendency of the divorce.
- Appellant’s girlfriend Kerry Davidson and their child were involved; Appellant disputed mortgage payments and support; Missouri child support order exists for Davidson child.
- Final Magistrate decision December 31, 2009; Trial court overruled objections August 31, 2010; Judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial misconduct evidence required | Kilpatrick argues misconduct shown | Kilpatrick contends no clear misconduct | Not in manifest weight; affirmed denial of misconduct finding |
| Valuation of marital assets | Disputes accuracy of valuations | Values not credibly proven | No abuse of discretion; valuations affirmed |
| Credit for forged check | Challenge to failure to offset forged check | Forgery not sufficiently proven or offset considered | Denied; court did not err in findings on forged check |
| Missouri child support offset | Missouri payment should be credited | No credible evidence payments were made per order | Missouri payments not credibly established; no offset given |
| Psychological evaluation/parenting time ruling | Motion for evaluation pending; parenting time not properly decided | Issues waived; parenting resolved | Waived issues; no reversible error in parenting-time ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Bucalo v. Bucalo, 2005-Ohio-6319 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 2005) (financial misconduct requires profit or defeat of quantum of assets)
- Eggeman v. Eggeman, 2004-Ohio-6050 (Ohio App. 3d Dist. 2004) (must show offender profited or defeated distribution to award distributive relief)
- Gallo v. Gallo, 2002-Ohio-2815 (Lake App. 6 Dist. 2002) (burden on the complaining spouse; misconduct must be proven)
- Mikhail v. Mikhail, 2005-Ohio-322 (Lucas App. 6th Dist. 2005) (misconduct requires wrongdoing; profits or defeat of asset distribution)
- Eggeman v. Eggeman, 2004-Ohio-6050 (Auglaize App. Dist. 2004) (clear showing of profit or defeat of distribution needed for compensating award)