Pletcher v. Pletcher
2019 Ohio 3625
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Jared and Aundrea Pletcher married in 2007 and acquired a residential property on Old River Road in December 2010 titled in both their names. Aundrea’s parents (the H.s) lived in the house as tenants before and after the transfer.
- The parties took a mortgage from Community Bank to extinguish the prior mortgage; an assignment of rents in favor of the bank was executed so tenants’ rent would secure mortgage payments.
- Aundrea testified no marital funds were used for a down payment or to make mortgage payments; the parents’ rent (or the parents directly) paid the mortgage. The property appraisal was $116,000 and the mortgage payoff about $64,971 (approximate equity ~$51,000).
- Aundrea filed for divorce in May 2017. At trial the court concluded the Old River Road property was Aundrea’s separate property and ordered her to refinance within one year to remove Jared’s name.
- Jared appealed, arguing the property (and mortgage) should be treated as marital property because it was acquired during marriage, titled to both spouses, and both executed the mortgage. The Fifth District reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to treat the property and mortgage as marital and to adjust the property division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Old River Road property (titled to both parties and acquired during marriage) is separate property or marital property | Aundrea: Property is her separate asset because it was acquired to allow her parents to remain tenants; no marital funds were used to buy or pay the mortgage; intent was to benefit parents | Jared: Property is marital because it was acquired during marriage, both names appear on title and mortgage (consideration), and the presumption is that assets acquired during marriage are marital | Reversed: Court abused its discretion in excluding the property. The property and the Community Bank mortgage are marital; remand to adjust the division |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981) (appellate review of property division is for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Koegel v. Koegel, 69 Ohio St.2d 355 (1982) (trial court afforded wide latitude in dividing property)
- Peck v. Peck, 96 Ohio App.3d 731 (1994) (classification of separate vs. marital property reversed only for abuse of discretion)
- Tennant v. Martin–Auer, 188 Ohio App.3d 768 (2010) (appellate role is to determine whether competent, credible evidence supports trial court findings)