Mass v. Mass, 2017 Ohio 9049

Husband acquired single-family residence in Bellaire, OH by deed in 1980 (pre-marriage). Parties married in 1983 and lived in that house through a ~32-year marriage.
In 1993 husband executed and recorded a joint-and-survivorship deed adding wife’s name. No mortgage encumbered the property.
Divorce filed 2015. Parties reached a partial property settlement on many assets (cash payment to wife in lieu of OPERS monthly division, splitting certain accounts, vehicles awarded, etc.). Two issues proceeded to trial: (1) whether the residence remained husband’s separate property or became marital property by gift/transmutation; and (2) whether wife should receive spousal support.
Magistrate found no gift of the residence but awarded wife 20% of the appraised $73,500 value for marital labor/improvements; magistrate denied spousal support.
Trial court sustained husband’s objection to the 20% award (finding insufficient evidence of appreciation caused by marital contributions) and overruled wife’s objections; trial court denied spousal support. Court of appeals affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether husband’s premarital residence transmuted to marital property by executing a joint-and-survivorship deed	Mass: deed evidenced donative intent; adding her name created a gift/transmutation and she is entitled to half (or at least half of the residence’s marital interest)	Mass: title alone is not dispositive under R.C. 3105.171(H); husband lacked donative intent and intended estate planning for children	Court: No abuse of discretion in finding no donative intent; residence remained husband’s separate property (trial court decision affirmed)
Whether wife is entitled to spousal support	Mass: 32-year marriage, age 60, income disparity, limited future Social Security and cash settlement will be depleted — spousal support of $1,500/month needed	Mass: trial court considered statutory factors and property settlement (including cash in lieu of pension); denial appropriate under broad discretion	Court: Trial court considered R.C. 3105.18 factors and did not abuse discretion in denying spousal support; denial affirmed

Williams v. Ormsby, 131 Ohio St.3d 427 (2012) (lists elements of an inter vivos gift: donative intent, delivery, relinquishment of control, acceptance)
Middendorf v. Middendorf, 82 Ohio St.3d 397 (1998) (increase in value of separate property during marriage may be marital to extent caused by spousal labor, money, or in-kind contributions)
Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (1982) (appellate review of domestic-relations property/spousal-support decisions is for abuse of discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (1988) (trial court must consider all statutory spousal-support factors and provide basis enabling appellate review)
Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981) (no flat rule for property division; decisions rest on equitable, fact-specific determinations)
Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (1990) (court must consider totality of circumstances in spousal-support decisions)
Helton v. Helton, 114 Ohio App.3d 683 (1996) (finding donative intent where grantor intended to convey present possessory interest despite tax/probate motivations)
In re Fife's Estate, 164 Ohio St. 449 (1956) (burden on donee to prove inter vivos gift by clear and convincing evidence)