Link v. Link, 2012 Ohio 4654

Married in 1979; David is CFO/VP of a private manufacturing company; Ann is a homemaker; three children are now adults.
June 2009: David filed for divorce; trial court issued pendente lite spousal support and credit-card indebtedness provisions favoring Ann; David to receive rental income and pay property debts.
Final hearings occurred December 14, 2009 and March 2, 2010; discovery issues arose; Ann subpoenaed additional bank/credit-card statements but did not move to compel; David’s employer finances were not fully disclosed.
Financial conduct and records: David disclosed several financial documents but did not possess all bank/credit-card statements; he stopped voluntary 401(k) contributions at proceedings’ start; equity line of credit was used for rentals, major expenses, and some personal items.
Magistrate’s decision (June 11, 2010): most rental properties and jewelry to Ann; one rental property jointly owned (Jeremy’s); Ann to pay most equity-line debt; no attorney-fees; spousal support denied; trial court adopted magistrate’s asset/debt distribution; divorce decree entered October 17, 2011; Ann appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Distributive award for alleged misconduct	Ann sought sanctions for David’s conduct.	David argues conduct doesn’t warrant sanctions under former law.	Distributive award not warranted; evidence supported trial court’s discretion.
Allocation of all marital assets	Ann contends some assets (rents post- Nov 2009, bonus, tax refunds) were omitted.	David contends absent evidence, allocation was proper.	Rents post-2009 were not clearly proven; bonuses/tax refunds not distributed due to timing; no reversal.
Division of marital assets (jewelry, college fund, tenancy, HSAs, attorney fees, equity line)	Ann challenges several allocations (jewelry as marital, college fund, tenancy in common, HSAs, fees).	David defends the court’s overall equitable distribution.	Jewelry deemed marital but college fund improper; health-savings-account allocation not abuse of discretion; attorney-fee denial upheld.
Temporary spousal support arrearages	Ann argues arrearages should be enforced.	David asserts he complied with orders.	Court did not err in not enforcing arrearages given evidence of compliance.
Spousal support (sustenance) award	Ann seeks periodic spousal support.	Court weighed factors and denied.	No abuse of discretion; court denied sustenance alimony given the asset split.

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (standard for clear and convincing proof; review of trial court findings)
Briganti v. Briganti, 9 Ohio St.3d 220 (1984) (totality of circumstances in property division)
Schiesswohl v. Schiesswohl, 9th Dist. No. 21629 (2004) (incomplete property division reversible where assets not allocated)