McCarty v. McCarty
2017 Ohio 5852
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Maureen and Jeffrey McCarty married in 1987, separated in 2014; three children are emancipated. Maureen largely stayed home during the marriage but helped manage and "flip" rental properties. Jeffrey has ownership interests in Kings Grill, Inc. (KGI) and McCarty Brothers, Inc. (MBI).
- After separation Maureen lived rent-free in a rental property the parties owned (typically rented at $2,000/month); Jeffrey stayed in the marital residence (FMV ~$850,000). A magistrate ordered the marital residence sold and proceeds split.
- The magistrate initially awarded temporary spousal support of $4,500/month (including $1,700 for housing, effective Oct. 1, 2014) and later a final award of $3,000/month. The magistrate valued businesses and treated certain properties as owned by Jeffrey personally.
- Jeffrey objected, arguing the magistrate overstated his income (he does not own 100% of KGI/MBI) and that the court should not impute income to Maureen. The trial court sustained the ownership/income objection and reduced spousal support to $2,000/month, made retroactive to Oct. 1, 2014, and allowed Jeffrey to remain in the marital home until sale.
- Maureen appealed the reduction and the occupancy ruling; Jeffrey cross-appealed valuation, characterization of property, imputation/double-dipping issues, and expert-fee allocation.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court only as to the reduction of spousal support (reinstating $3,000/month, retroactive to Oct. 1, 2014), and otherwise affirmed the trial court on occupancy, business valuation, property characterization, imputation/double-dipping, and expert-fee allocation, remanding only to determine any arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maureen) | Defendant's Argument (Jeffrey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly reduced spousal support from $3,000 to $2,000 and made reduction retroactive | Trial court abused discretion by reducing support based solely on partial ownership of KGI/MBI and failed to analyze R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) factors; Maureen also pointed to loss of rental income while living in the property | Reduction was proper because Jeffrey does not own 100% of businesses so income should be reduced; retroactivity justified because Maureen paid no rent since separation | Reversed the reduction: reinstated $3,000/month effective Oct. 1, 2014; trial court abused discretion by basing reduction solely on partial ownership but did not abuse discretion on retroactivity |
| Whether trial court erred by permitting Jeffrey to continue occupying the marital residence pending sale | Maureen argued she was better suited to ready and sell the house (staging experience) and trial court should have required Jeffrey to vacate | Jeffrey argued occupation was permissible; owner presence does not typically impede realtor showings; trial court may revisit if sale is impeded | Affirmed: allowing Jeffrey to reside in the home until sale was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court improperly "double-dipped" by valuing business assets and also using same income streams for support; and whether income should be imputed to Maureen | (Maureen did not raise double-dipping) Maureen opposed reduction based on ownership percentages already considered by magistrate | Jeffrey argued asset valuation relied on income streams and court double-counted same earnings; also argued income should be imputed to Maureen (she could earn more) | Rejected double-dipping: court used asset-valuation method (expert testimony) rather than income-based valuation; no abuse in declining to impute income to Maureen |
| Whether KGI, MBI, and several parcels were marital assets and properly valued; and expert-fee allocation | Maureen's expert valuations adopted by magistrate; parcels titled in Jeffrey's name were marital and should be divided | Jeffrey claimed some businesses/properties were separate or held by the entities (not him) and disputed valuations; objected to paying most of Maureen's expert fees | Affirmed: record supports finding parcels and business value were marital (Jeffrey controlled assets and used titling to avoid exposure); trial court did not err ordering Jeffrey to pay half of wife's expert fees because husband's expert relied on her work |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight claims and interpretation of evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)