McNee v. McNee
2017 Ohio 7700
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Edward and Amanda McNee married in 2009, had one child, and Edward filed for divorce in 2013; the magistrate’s decision (adopted by the trial court) resolved property division, child support, and litigation-expense issues.
- Edward owns three businesses (JaSar Recycling, JaSar Enterprises, Liquid Luggers); experts offered conflicting valuations and the magistrate found a $284,000 marital increase tied to a shareholder note/loan Edward made during the marriage.
- Child support was set at $1,062.60/month after the court capped combined income for worksheet purposes and declined to deduct Edward’s soon-to-end spousal-support obligation to an ex-wife.
- A $90,000 promissory note (Pearl Street property) led to a judgment and appellee’s Chapter 7 discharge of part of the debt; the court found no financial misconduct by appellee and awarded no credit to Edward.
- The magistrate/trial court classified an $8,500 jukebox and nine guns (totaling $8,600) as marital property based on conflicting testimony and credibility findings.
- The court valued a Michigan parcel at $7,600 (using tax records) and ordered Edward to pay $7,700 of appellee’s business-valuation expense based on relative ability to pay and reasonableness of the expense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business valuation: whether businesses had premarital/postmarital values and whether magistrate erred in treating a shareholder note as marital asset | Edward: experts showed premarital value of $776,000 and a postmarital decline to ~$104k; court lacked stated methodology and improperly treated loan as value | Amanda: expert testified businesses increased and the $284,000 loan/note is either capital (asset) or available to Edward | Court: affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; credited expert that $284,000 is marital (either company value or receivable) and declined to accept stale 2006 valuation as premarital value |
| Child support: whether existing spousal-support payments to an ex should be deducted from gross income | Edward: R.C. 3119.05(B) requires deduction of court-ordered spousal support actually paid | Amanda: magistrate considered obligation but it was ending imminently; court used case-by-case calculation under R.C. 3119.04(B) for combined income >$150,000 | Court: affirmed—no abuse; obligation ended imminently and court properly applied high-income standards and capped combined income for worksheet reference |
| Bankruptcy/financial misconduct: whether appellee’s discharge of part of debt constituted financial misconduct warranting offset | Edward: appellee discharged ~$30,000 of debt owed to him to evade divorce distribution; he should get credit | Amanda: debt discharge restored parties to pre-gift position; no misconduct shown | Court: affirmed—no abuse; appellant would regain the property interest and no evidence of intentional misconduct to defeat marital distribution |
| Personal property (jukebox): whether magistrate erred in treating a jukebox as marital | Edward: he sold the jukebox before separation; receipt proves sale and separate ownership | Amanda: saw the same jukebox after separation and identified music; receipt ambiguous | Court: affirmed—credibility issue; magistrate reasonably discounted receipt and found jukebox marital |
| Personal property (guns): whether six of nine guns belonged to third party and valuation was improper | Edward: six guns belonged to friend Toy; only three were his; Toy testified to ownership | Amanda: Toy’s testimony was vague/conflicting; guns were in marital home and appellee saw them there | Court: affirmed—credibility determination for Toy and accepted valuation by firearms expert; all nine were marital |
| Real property (Michigan parcel): whether tax assessment undervalued property compared to plaintiff’s claimed $12,000 purchase price | Edward: he paid $12,000; court should accept that value | Amanda: offered tax records showing assessed/taxable value ~$7,600 | Court: affirmed—no abuse; plaintiff had no documentation of purchase price, court reasonably relied on tax records |
| Litigation expenses: whether ordering Edward to pay $7,700 for appellee’s business valuation was improper without testimony on reasonableness | Edward: cost reasonableness not proven and no specific court order authorized the expense | Amanda: submitted invoice; ability to pay and necessity of valuation justified expense award | Court: affirmed—award equitable under R.C. 3105.73; invoice submitted and parties had cross-examination opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard requires more than error of law or judgment)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (trial court as fact-finder entitled to assess witness credibility by demeanor)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (child-support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)