Roberts v. Roberts
2013 Ohio 1733
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Married in 1992; two children; Wife worked as bookkeeper while Husband ran farming/excavation businesses.
- Wife moved out in April 2010; Wife filed for divorce on July 30, 2010.
- Magistrate’s June–August 2011 decision: marriage terminated 7/30/2010; identified mortgage balances, joint accounts, and equipment values; most property deemed marital.
- Magistrate awarded Wife half of home equity, half of joint accounts, half of equipment; Husband credited with 2010 crop profits.
- Husband and Wife filed objections (Nov 2011); transcript filed Mar 9, 2012; supplemental objections filed Apr 16, 2012; some objections deemed untimely or non-specific.
- Divorce decree (June 8, 2012) ordered Husband to pay Wife $307,851.22 with a structured payment plan and 3% interest; Wife cross-appealed on crop profits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date used to value marital property was equitable? | Husband argues May 2011 valuation too late. | Wife asserts proper valuation dates were used. | Court did not abuse; July 30, 2010 termination date acceptable for equitable division. |
| Were mortgage and bank account valuations properly preserved on appeal? | Husband failed to raise specifics in original objections. | Wife preserved issues; trial court properly declined certain valuations. | Waived/untimely for mortgage and bank accounts; related issues not reviewable. |
| Was there a $27,000 debt on Kinze planter at separation? | Exhibits showed a $27,000 debt; debt existed at separation. | Trial court found no evidence of debt as of July 30, 2010. | Assignment of error sustained; reverse to determine planter debt and adjust division. |
| Is the 3% interest on the property settlement appropriate? | Interest rate should be lower or none unless late. | Trial court could determine interest rate; 3% reasonable. | No abuse; 3% interest affirmed. |
| Wife entitled to 2010 net crop profits? | Wife claimed half of 2010 crops since planted before/around separation. | Crops planted post-separation or with 2010 expenses; no entitlement to profits. | Cross-assignment overruled; Wife not entitled to 2010 net crop profits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. Day, 40 Ohio App.3d 155 (10th Dist.1988) (equitable termination date and property division discretion)
- Koegel v. Koegel, 69 Ohio St.2d 355 (1982) (court may use discretion in property division; equity-based dates)