Miller v. Miller
2017 Ohio 7646
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Daniel and Amy Miller married in 1986, later separated in 2014; three children are emancipated. The family’s primary income came from a concrete business Daniel owned.
- Amy inherited $276,585 in 2012 and used $71,175.80 of that inheritance to pay off the marital residence mortgage; she also used inheritance funds for other personal and business-related expenses.
- During the separation Daniel diverted business checks to a PO box and took control of business accounts receivable (~$94,000 for Jan–Jun 2014). Amy withdrew roughly $99,000 from a joint account and spent it for living/household expenses pursuant to a temporary consent order.
- Trial court (May 9, 2016) held Amy’s inheritance traceable and therefore separate, treated the $99,000 and $94,000 as essentially offsetting (“a wash”), awarded Amy $5,000 in attorney’s fees, and ordered spousal support of $750/month for seven years.
- On appeal Daniel challenged (1) classification and division of property (incl. the mortgage payoff and credits for residence equity), (2) the attorney-fee award, and (3) spousal support. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Amy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amy’s use of inheritance to pay mortgage was a gift (i.e., whether funds became marital) | Trial court erred by treating traceability as dispositive and placing burden on Daniel to prove a gift | Amy traced the funds to inheritance and argued they remained separate; trial court found traceable | Court: trial court applied wrong legal standard. Marital gift presumption applies when a family member benefits; burden shifts to donor (Amy) to prove no gift. Reversed and remanded on this issue |
| Whether Daniel is entitled to credit for equity in marital residence because of mortgage payoff | Entitled to credit (trial court’s classification error led to inequitable division) | Trial court found payoff was separate so no credit due | Remanded: court must reconsider credit after applying correct gift presumption; issue not finally resolved |
| Whether the $99,000 (Amy’s withdrawals) and $94,000 (Daniel’s receivables) should offset | $94k receivables are not equivalent to cash; valuation error and inequitable distribution | Funds were used per the temporary order; each party effectively secured a source of support; trial court treated them as offsetting | Court: affirmed trial court’s determination that, under the totality of circumstances and temporary-order context, the amounts were reasonably treated as a wash (not against manifest weight) |
| Whether trial court erred awarding attorney’s fees and spousal support | Fees not shown reasonable and were paid from marital funds; spousal support depends on correct property division | Amy produced detailed invoices; court considered statutory factors and parties’ circumstances | Attorney fees: affirmed (trial court did not abuse discretion). Spousal support: reversed and remanded because final property division may change support analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21 (Ohio 1936) (elements of an inter vivos gift)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for reviewing whether judgment is supported by competent, credible evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for domestic-relations rulings)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (guidance on equitable property division principles)