Martin v. Martin
2016 Ohio 7551
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Eric Martin filed for divorce from Dr. Denise Carradine Martin in September 2009 after an acrimonious, lengthy proceeding; trial court granted divorce for incompatibility in February 2015.
- Dr. Carradine Martin, a chiropractor, transferred large sums (≈ $854,261) through counsel to an account at Maerki Baumann & Co. in Zurich; much of this was concealed from Eric during the marriage and divorce.
- Trial court found financial misconduct by Dr. Carradine Martin and awarded Mr. Martin nearly $800,000 (including Swiss account funds, sums in attorney IOLTA, and bank accounts) described in the judgment as a “distributive award.”
- The court classified and valued numerous contested assets (business accounts, investment and retirement accounts, LLC accounts, loans to businesses, commercial real estate) and allocated property and some expense obligations (e.g., courthouse-ordered share of commercial building expenses).
- Trial court reserved jurisdiction to enter further orders to divide assets and enforce awards; parties appealed assignments of error contesting jurisdictional reservation, classification/valuation of assets, the nature/size/source of the distributive award, expense apportionment, and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martin) | Defendant's Argument (Carradine Martin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reservation of jurisdiction to "enter further order to divide assets" | Permissible reservation to enforce and effectuate property awards | Impermissible reservation that would allow modification of property division | Court: reservation construed as for enforcement; not reversible error (assignment lacks merit) |
| Nature and source of the financial-misconduct award ("distributive award") | Trial court may award from marital property; naming it "distributive" is harmless if court intended equitable award from marital assets | A distributive award for financial misconduct must come from offending party’s separate property; award labelled distributive but taken from marital property was error | Court: label was harmless; court had power to award from marital property; assignment lacks merit (majority). Concurring judge would remand to clarify source/amount drawn from separate vs marital property |
| Classification and valuation of contested assets (accounts, business valuation, loans, Maerki Baumann account date) | Many assets were marital and Mr. Martin’s valuations/characterizations were justified | Several accounts/businesses/transactions were appellant’s separate property or misvalued (argues specific accounts and valuation methods) | Court: majority affirms most classifications/valuations (trial court did not abuse discretion or lose way); modifies in part (COMMONWEALTH account found separate; prevents double recovery on loans; Maerki Baumann valuation as of Dec. 31, 2009 acceptable) |
| Allocation of property/expenses and attorney fees (commercial building expense share; fee award) | Award of building and expense apportionment and fees were equitable in view of concealment and available marital assets | Award of building and expense allocation is inequitable because appellant principally occupies building; fees excessive | Court: no abuse of discretion on building award or 25% expense allocation; attorney-fee award of $37,076.53 (less than requested) was within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (Ohio 1925) (abuse-of-discretion concept explained)
- James v. James, 101 Ohio App.3d 668 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (trial court not required to adopt particular valuation method)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (Ohio 1981) (equal division is starting point for equitable division)
- Bisker v. Bisker, 69 Ohio St.3d 608 (Ohio 1994) (property division need not be equal but must be equitable)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for appellate reversal of trial court discretion)
- Huelskamp v. Huelskamp, 185 Ohio App.3d 611 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (trial court has broad discretion valuing marital assets)