Miller v. Miller
2017 Ohio 7646
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Daniel and Amy Miller married in 1986; three children (now emancipated). Daniel owned and operated a concrete business; Amy performed administrative work and held part‑time jobs.
- In 2012 Amy inherited $276,585; she used $71,175.80 of it to pay off the marital residence mortgage and used other portions for investments and business purchases.
- In early 2014 Daniel removed Amy from receipt of business checks and took exclusive control of business accounts; Amy withdrew about $99,000 from a joint account and used it for living expenses during the separation.
- Daniel claimed about $94,000 in accounts receivable for the concrete business (Jan–Jun 2014); the trial court treated the $99,000 and $94,000 as effectively offsetting each other.
- Trial court found Amy’s inheritance traceable and thus separate property, denied Daniel credit for mortgage payoff, awarded Amy $750/month spousal support for seven years, and $5,000 attorney’s fees; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amy’s payment of the mortgage with inheritance converted the house equity to marital property (marital‑gift presumption) | Daniel: Trial court misapplied law by placing burden on him to prove a gift; marital‑gift presumption should have shifted burden to Amy | Amy: Money traceable to inheritance; she did not intend a gift; funds are separate because traceable | Court: Reversed and remanded on this point — trial court should have applied marital‑gift presumption (burden on donor) and reconsider whether funds were a gift |
| Whether $99,000 (marital cash spent by Amy) and $94,000 (Daniel’s accounts receivable) should be treated as equivalent/offset | Daniel: Accounts receivable differ in value from cash (taxes, collection uncertainty, business revenue vs profit) so not equivalent | Amy: Funds were used under a temporary order for living/house expenses; both parties reserved funding sources; they offset in practical effect | Court: Overruled challenge — trial court’s determination that they were a “wash” is supported by competent, credible evidence (no manifest‑weight reversal) |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding Amy $5,000 attorney’s fees | Daniel: Fees not shown reasonable/necessary; many fees already paid from marital funds; court failed to explain basis | Amy: Submitted detailed billing; court may use its experience to assess reasonableness and equity | Court: Affirmed — invoice supported reasonableness and court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees |
| Whether spousal support award must be reversed given property classification errors | Daniel: Spousal support depends on proper property distribution; remand needed if property division changes | Amy: Spousal support based on trial court’s property distribution and statutory factors | Court: Sustained — remanded because spousal support must be reconsidered after property classification (per remand on gift issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Barkley v. Barkley, 119 Ohio App.3d 155 (Ohio Ct. App.) (defines elements of inter vivos gift)
- Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21 (Ohio 1936) (elements of gift: intent, delivery, acceptance)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate review of domestic‑relations discretionary rulings)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (equitable division principle in divorce)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (competent, credible evidence standard)