Roush v. Roush
2017 Ohio 840
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Marriage (1996) with two children; appellee (Allison) filed for divorce in April 2013 after an incident that led to her temporary involuntary detention; parties had mixed asset accounts and retirement plans.
- Trial court granted divorce May 21, 2015, adopting a shared parenting plan, ordering child/spousal support, dividing marital and separate property, awarding appellee $15,000 toward attorney fees, and ordering appellant (William) to transfer retirement funds via a QDRO.
- Appellant moved for a new trial; appellee then moved for contempt alleging noncompliance with decree. A nunc pro tunc entry corrected a child-support line. Trial court denied new trial, later found appellant in contempt (Mar. 9, 2016), and ordered an additional $5,000 in attorney fees for the contempt proceeding.
- Appellant appealed three entries (denial of new trial; contempt finding; post-decree attorney-fee award). The Tenth District consolidated the appeals and affirmed.
- Key contested factual/ legal points: responsibility for appellee’s institutionalization; characterization of two Chase savings accounts for the children; source of down payment on the marital residence; allocation/valuation issues (insurance proceeds and repairs); calculation of child support (later rendered moot); QDRO/retirement transfer compliance and contempt; attorney-fee awards in both decree and post-decree proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Civ.R. 59 motion for new trial (weight/contrary to law) | Trial court correctly weighed evidence and credibility; motion lacked merit | Court failed to discuss each point in motion; errors in factual findings (e.g., institutionalization attributed to William) | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; affidavit and testimony supported finding that William initiated events leading to detention |
| Allocation of extraordinary school/extracurricular expenses | Shared parenting plan adopted by court provides equal division | Trial court ordered William to pay two-thirds (claimed error) | Moot/Resolved: court adopted shared parenting plan post-decree providing equal division |
| Child support amount when insurance not provided | Court properly corrected via nunc pro tunc entry | Original decree allegedly doubled support | Moot: nunc pro tunc entry removed the ambiguity |
| Characterization of two Chase savings accounts (children’s custodial vs marital) | Accounts were custodial for children based on parties’ pattern and testimony | William argued funds were marital (appellee deposited funds at filing) | Affirmed: competent, credible evidence supported custodial characterization; trial court credited appellee’s testimony |
| Source of down payment (separate vs marital) | Appellee presented checks and testimony showing pre-marital/inheritance funds; down payment partly separate | William challenged lack of corroborating inheritance documentation; argued funds were marital | Affirmed: trial court reasonably credited appellee’s testimony and documentary evidence; not an abuse of discretion |
| Insurance proceeds / residence repairs / valuation | Appellee showed repairs were completed and proceeds were used; no need to adjust valuation | William argued payments were for later repairs and appellee should return half | Affirmed: trial court found William’s testimony not credible and division/valuation proper |
| Attorney fees in decree ($15,000) | Award equitable considering parties’ incomes, conduct, and litigative disparity | William contended court misstated his legal payments and improperly considered institutionalization attribution | Affirmed: despite some inaccuracies about fees paid, court relied on multiple equitable factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Contempt for failure to transfer retirement funds (QDRO) | William had obligation under decree and failed to pursue QDRO; inaction by him/counsel justified contempt | William argued third-party preparation made transfer impossible; inability to obtain QDRO excused noncompliance | Affirmed: requirement was clear; William knew obligation and did not show impossibility unrelated to his own inaction |
| Post-decree attorney fees ($5,000) | Award equitable under R.C. 3105.73(B) considering income disparity and repeated noncompliance | William argued duplicative award given prior $15,000 award | Affirmed: court considered reasonableness, fees incurred, income disparity, and conduct; no abuse of discretion |
| Timing/denial of stay while appeals pending | William argued late ruling on stay prejudiced appellate remedies | Appellee and court: App.R.7 allows filing in appellate court where trial court failed to afford relief; appellant later sought stay here and was denied | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; appellant was not prejudiced by trial court’s timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2006) (trial court’s broad discretion in evidentiary rulings)