Mayer v. Mayer
2011 Ohio 1884
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 1999, Gary Mayer sustained a work-related injury; his Workers’ Compensation settlement occurred in 2008 during the marriage.
- Settlement totaled $55,000; after expenses, Mayer received $43,789.71 in two checks.
- Part of the funds were used for non-marital purposes and to assist Mayer’s adult son with unrelated legal fees; small portion remained by the time of divorce.
- Parties separated before the divorce was final; the trial magistrate noted Mayer could use the funds as he wished.
- The trial court treated the entire settlement as marital property and the appeal challenged that characterization, raising the burden of proof issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WC settlement is marital property. | Mayer contends the award is non-marital under statute. | Appellee contends the award should be marital due to funds used for marital expenses. | WC award is separate property; presumption favors separation when evidence of marital use is lacking. |
| Burden of proof on separate-property characterization. | Appellee asserts appellant bears burden to show non-marital nature. | Appellant argues the court should treat the entire award as separate absent proof of marital use. | Starting presumption is that benefits are separate; appellee must prove the portion is marital, which she failed to do. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lust v. Lust, 2002-Ohio-3629 (Ohio Court of Appeals (Wyandot Co.) 2002) (loss of consortium evidence affects marital-property characterization)
- Hartzel v. Hartzel, 90 Ohio App.3d 385 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (loss of earning capacity vs. marital property distinction)
- Bauser v. Bauser, 118 Ohio App.3d 831 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (disability benefits treated as separate property absent marital-use evidence)