Mousa v. Saad
2017 Ohio 7116
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Emad Mousa and Arlet Saad married in 2005, had two children, and divorced after contested proceedings culminating in a Decree (second amended) entered August 31, 2016.
- Extensive discovery disputes and repeated contempt findings against Emad for noncompliance and unpaid obligations occurred during litigation.
- Trial court classified various financial transfers between Emad and family, valued business interests, allocated personal property (including gold/silver), and calculated a net marital estate, awarding Arlet a $400,000 distributive award under R.C. 3105.171(E)(4)/(5).
- Emad appealed, raising multiple assignments of error challenging (inter alia) the specificity of the Decree, classification of assets as marital or separate, the legitimacy and calculation of the $400,000 distributive award, valuation/double-counting of business and bank accounts, and a restriction on moving assets out of the country.
- Arlet cross-appealed claiming the trial court failed to equitably divide the parties’ 2014 joint tax refund.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it sustained several assignments to the extent the trial court must clarify its findings (net marital estate, classification of certain transfers, property division, distributive award, and spousal-support basis), mooted others, and rejected the constitutional challenge to the asset-transfer restriction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Decree provides sufficient factual findings and specificity under R.C. 3105.171(G) for appellate review | Emad: Decree lacks detail to reconcile net marital estate, equalization, and diverted/undisclosed asset calculations | Arlet: Decree and record provide sufficient basis; trial court evaluated statutory factors | Court: Sustained; Decree insufficiently detailed—remanded for clarifying findings |
| Whether certain assets/transactions were properly classified as marital or separate property | Emad: Court failed to identify marital vs. nonmarital for transfers between him and parents and other assets | Arlet: Trial court found misconduct and treated assets accordingly | Court: Sustained in part; classification unclear—remanded for explicit classification |
| Validity and calculation of $400,000 distributive award under R.C. 3105.171(E)(4)/(5) for financial misconduct/non-disclosure | Emad: Award illegitimate because property division and fee awards already compensated Arlet; court double-counted and miscalculated net estate | Arlet: Award permitted for misconduct and supported by findings | Court: Sustained limited to remand—trial court must clarify net estate, undisclosed/diverted asset totals and explain the distributive award; alternative challenges mooted |
| Whether trial court improperly valued business and ‘‘double-dipped’’ earnings for spousal support | Emad: Business valuation was used both as property value and as income to calculate spousal support, resulting in double counting | Arlet: Trial court properly considered evidence and statutory factors | Court: Sustained for remand—insufficient detail in Decree to assess spousal-support reasonableness or business valuation treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 2003) (trial court has broad discretion in dividing marital assets)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (requirement that property-division findings enable appellate review)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1990) (trial court discretion in spousal support determinations)
- Heller v. Heller, 195 Ohio App.3d 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (definition and scope of spousal support)
- Williams v. Williams, 996 N.E.2d 533 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (statutory findings under R.C. 3105.171(G) must permit appellate review)