Lingenfelter v. Lingenfelter
2017 Ohio 235
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jason and Nichole Lingenfelter married in 2000, had two children, and Jason filed for divorce in June 2012; several financial and support issues remained disputed after partial stipulations.
- A magistrate heard the case on July 30, 2013 and October 10, 2013. At the end of the first day the magistrate spoke privately with counsel and—while the proceeding was being recorded without participants’ awareness—stated he had known Husband’s parents for decades and that his former secretary was related to them; he also made negative comments about Wife.
- The private conversation was not placed on the record for the parties; Wife only learned full details after obtaining the transcript later and moved to disqualify the magistrate.
- The trial court initially denied the motion without a hearing; this Court previously reversed and remanded for a hearing, which the trial court then held and again denied disqualification.
- On this appeal the Ninth District held the trial court abused its discretion: the magistrate’s private disclosure, failure to address or record it on the record, and pre-evidence negative remarks toward Wife created the appearance of impropriety warranting disqualification; the court reversed and remanded. Remaining challenges to property division, spousal support, and child support were rendered moot by that disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magistrate should be disqualified for bias/appearance of impropriety | Wife: magistrate privately disclosed long acquaintance with Husband’s family, failed to disclose on the record, made prejudicial comments before hearing all evidence — appearance of impropriety | Husband: relationship was only an acquaintance, former secretary hadn’t worked for magistrate in 17+ years, no actual bias | Reversed: trial court abused discretion; reasonable observer could harbor serious doubts about impartiality; disqualification required and case remanded |
| Use of date of separation vs. stipulated termination date to calculate home equity | Wife: trial court used date of separation rather than stipulated termination date, affecting equity calculation | Trial court/Husband: (defended use of separation date/accuracy of calculations) | Moot (not decided because disqualification reversed) |
| Spousal support amount and duration | Wife: award inappropriate given record and calculations | Husband: award appropriate based on findings | Moot (not addressed due to reversal) |
| Child support calculation and designation of payor | Wife: trial court miscalculated and improperly named Wife the obligor | Husband/trial court: supported child support determination | Moot (not addressed due to reversal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Disqualification of Burge, 138 Ohio St.3d 1271 (2014) (appearance of bias undermines public confidence and can warrant disqualification)
- In re Disqualification of Farmer, 139 Ohio St.3d 1202 (2014) (objective test: whether reasonable observer would doubt impartiality)
- In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227 (2004) (same objective standard for appearance of impropriety)
- State ex rel. Williams v. Sieve, 130 Ohio St.3d 207 (2011) (trial court discretion in magistrate disqualification matters)
- James v. James, 101 Ohio App.3d 668 (1995) (appearance of partiality can warrant disqualification of a referee in divorce proceedings)