2013 Ohio 5031
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Cheryl and Michael Regalbuto married in 1990, separated in May 2011, and had two unemancipated children at the time of the final hearing; shared parenting issues were resolved by agreed entry.
- Both have high school educations; Cheryl had intermittent employment and was self-employed at two home-furnishings businesses (approx. $25,000 income); Michael was a self-employed home builder with about $59,000 income.
- Marital assets and debts included a Gates Mills residence (listed at $1.475M with ~ $837,000 mortgages and a $25,000 tax lien), a Florida condominium foreclosure judgment, and roughly $97,000 in credit-card debt; parties also lost approximately $800,000 in an IPOF Ponzi investment.
- Temporary order required both parties to equally contribute to residence-related monthly bills; court found Cheryl in contempt earlier for failing to pay and for removing/selling marital property (a chandelier).
- At a five-day trial (each party allotted 2.5 days), the magistrate issued findings resolving divorce, property division, a distributive award to Michael for Cheryl’s sale/concealment of a chandelier, denied Cheryl’s contempt motion against Michael, and awarded Cheryl $200/month spousal support; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial was unfair/denied due process by allocation of time | Cheryl: magistrate misallocated time, cut off cross-examination and denied promised extra time | Michael: parties agreed to five-day schedule and each had 2.5 days; magistrate acted to manage proceedings | Court: no due-process violation; parties agreed to time limits and Cheryl had opportunity to present evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| 2. Whether distributive award for financial misconduct (chandelier sale) was improper | Cheryl: contested distributive award and characterization of her conduct | Michael: Cheryl concealed purchaser, sale price, and location of chandelier; sought compensation under R.C. 3105.171 | Court: upheld $8,832 distributive award for Cheryl’s concealment/misconduct; no abuse of discretion |
| 3. Whether trial court erred by not finding Michael in contempt for failing to pay mortgage | Cheryl: same temporary order used to find her in contempt should apply to Michael | Michael: admitted he stopped mortgage payments but produced record of substantial other payments and testified inability to meet obligations | Court: denial of contempt affirmed because magistrate found impossibility of performance on combined incomes; no abuse of discretion |
| 4. Whether spousal support award ($200/month) was unreasonable | Cheryl: amount inappropriate and unreasonable | Michael: court considered incomes, earning capacity, duration, standard of living, and changed finances; kept jurisdiction for modification | Court: court conducted R.C. 3105.18 analysis and award was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate standard: abuse of discretion review)
- Teeter v. Teeter, 18 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 1985) (trial courts have broad discretion in equitable division of marital property)
- Adams v. Chambers, 82 Ohio App.3d 462 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court discretion in property division and distributive awards)