2022 Ohio 3450
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Jason and Jacqueline Owens married in 2012; husband owned a pre-marital Equiniti account holding Procter & Gamble stock and the parties bought a house together before marriage.
- In May 2020 the parties’ older child (L.O.) made statements raising concern of sexual abuse; authorities did not pursue charges but temporary orders (June–Aug 2020) restricted husband’s contact and limited visitation.
- Multiple evaluations and expert testimony (Dr. Taylor, Dr. Bassman, Mayerson Clinic, HCJFS, guardian ad litem) recommended a safety plan and psychotherapy for father; some experts found no indication husband was a sex offender but urged precautions.
- Trial (August 2021) resulted in a divorce decree awarding wife sole residential and legal custody, limited unsupervised parenting time to father, child support backdated to June 1, 2020, equal division of Equiniti shares, valuation of the marital home at $230,000 (July 2021 appraisal), and $15,000 in attorney fees to wife.
- Husband appealed, challenging (1) property division (home valuation and Equiniti tracing), (2) custody and parenting-time restrictions, (3) child-support effective date, and (4) attorney-fee award. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owens) | Defendant's Argument (Jacqueline) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation date and division of marital home | Trial court erred by using a July 2021 appraisal (post-termination market spike) instead of a May 2020 appraisal nearer the separation | Current market conditions justify the later valuation; court selected appropriate equitable valuation | Court abused discretion by valuing the home with an appraisal far beyond the termination date; remanded to use valuation closer to termination (May 2020) |
| Tracing of Equiniti (P&G) shares | Husband proved premarital origin and that 199.976 shares remained after an Aug 14, 2012 sale; those shares are traceable separate property | Shares were commingled by post-marriage contributions and husband failed to sufficiently trace separate shares | Court erred by treating all shares as marital; husband established that 199.976 shares remained premarital and should be excluded from divisible marital stock; remanded to adjust division |
| Custody allocation and parenting time restrictions | Award of sole custody to wife and the limited parenting-time schedule was an abuse of discretion | Wife urged sole custody and restrictions as required by child-safety concerns and expert recommendations; coparenting was poor | No abuse of discretion: trial court’s best-interest findings (child safety, expert recommendations, parties’ inability to coparent) were supported by competent, credible evidence; custody and restrictions affirmed |
| Child-support effective date | Backdating support to June 1, 2020 was arbitrary and unrelated to events | Mother assumed full-time care after May 2020 allegations; effective date should coincide with that change | No abuse of discretion: effective date coincided with the month mother began full-time custody (June 1, 2020); award upheld |
| Attorney-fee award ($15,000 to wife) | Award was abuse of discretion because the court speculated husband could obtain financial help from family without evidence | Court relied on relative ability to afford litigation and conduct; fee award was equitable | Reversed: fee award was based on speculation about third-party family assistance and thus was unreasonable; remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Barish v. Barish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (1982) (equity may require selection of a de facto termination date for marriage)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (trial court has broad discretion in child-custody allocations and the weight of witness observation on the record)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Peck v. Peck, 96 Ohio App.3d 731 (1994) (separate property retains identity if traceable despite commingling)
- Kotch v. Kotch, 178 Ohio App.3d 358 (2008) (evidence can support finding premarital equity attributable to both spouses where premarital funds were commingled)
- Gullia v. Gullia, 93 Ohio App.3d 653 (1994) (factors supporting use of de facto termination date: separation, separate residences, separate finances)