Meyer v. Meyer
2016 Ohio 8100
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- John and Sharon Meyer divorced; decree incorporated agreed stipulations about selling the marital residence and who would occupy and pay certain expenses.
- Decree gave John exclusive occupancy and stated he "will pay" the 2013 second-half real estate tax and any subsequent tax bills incurred prior to sale; it also said pro-rated real estate taxes to closing and homeowner's insurance premiums "shall be shared equally."
- The decree omitted earlier stipulation language that had labeled reimbursement for taxes from the August 2014 installment to closing as a "contested" issue.
- At closing the parties withheld $5,382.89 in escrow because John had advanced taxes ($3,740.77), homeowner's insurance ($1,162.53), and a plumbing bill ($60.00).
- A magistrate awarded John one-half of his documented expenditures plus one-half of the remaining escrow; the trial court modified that allocation, first splitting escrow equally then transferring one-half of John’s expenditures from Sharon’s share to John, resulting in $5,173.09 to John and $209.80 to Sharon.
- Sharon appealed, arguing the decree was unambiguous and that the court ignored its plain language (and should construe any ambiguity against John, the drafter).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (John) | Defendant's Argument (Sharon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether decree language about payment/reimbursement of taxes and insurance is ambiguous | Decree permits dividing disputed funds to reimburse one-half of John’s expenditures and reflect equitable sharing | Decree is clear and unambiguous; John should bear taxes due during his occupancy or, if ambiguous, language must be construed against John as drafter | Court: Decree is ambiguous; trial court permissibly considered parties' intent and equities and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether omission of "contested issue" in decree forfeits reliance on that stipulation | John relied on decree language as journalized | Sharon contends omission was inadvertent and the stipulation shows contested nature | Court: Sharon forfeited argument based on stipulation omission because she never preserved that issue below |
| Proper method to disburse escrow accounting for John’s advances | John: escrow should be split equally, then his reimbursement deducted from Sharon’s share (trial court’s method) | Magistrate had first reimbursed John then split remaining balance equally (Sharon favored less transfer to John) | Court: Trial court’s method (equal split then transfer of half expenditures from Sharon to John) correctly restored one-half reimbursement to John |
| Whether trial court should construe ambiguous language against drafter | Sharon: if ambiguous, interpret against John (drafter) to avoid windfall | John: intent and equities are discernible so no need to construe against drafter | Held: Court may construe against drafter only if intent cannot be determined; here intent/equities were discernible, so no contra-drafting rule applied |
Key Cases Cited
- McKinney v. McKinney, 142 Ohio App.3d 604 (2d Dist. 2001) (resolving ambiguity in divorce decree using contract principles)
- Forstner v. Forstner, 68 Ohio App.3d 367 (11th Dist. 1990) (separation agreement interpreted under contract rules)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Pharmacia Hepar, Inc. v. Franklin, 111 Ohio App.3d 468 (12th Dist. 1996) (extrinsic evidence admissible to interpret but not contradict ambiguous terms)
- In re Marriage of Seders, 42 Ohio App.3d 155 (9th Dist. 1988) (trial court may consider intent and equities to clarify ambiguous divorce-decree language)