2021 Ohio 4576
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Parties married in Armenia in 1999, moved to Canada, had one child (born 2001); husband moved out of the marital residence in 2008.
- Appellant (Martirosyan) filed in Ontario in 2009; a 2011 Canadian order awarded child and spousal support (retroactive to Jan. 1, 2009) but did not grant a divorce or divide marital property.
- Martirosyan bought a Canadian house in 2013 (down payment from support, retirement funds, and family cash per her testimony); husband (Sargsyan) later lived with her in that house at times.
- In 2017 the parties relocated to Ohio (Sargsyan in July, Martirosyan in Sept./Oct.); Martirosyan sold the Canadian house in Sept. 2017 and used proceeds to buy a Columbus home.
- Sargsyan sued for divorce in August 2018; trial (to the court) occurred July–Aug. 2019. Trial court found the marriage duration ran to Sept. 7, 2018 (date Martirosyan answered), treated the Canadian house equity as marital, and ordered Martirosyan to pay Sargsyan 50% of the net proceeds; Martirosyan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sargsyan) | Defendant's Argument (Martirosyan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio court must give comity effect to the Canadian order as establishing a de facto separation date (Nov. 1, 2008) | Canadian order only governs support; Ohio court is not obliged to adopt foreign findings for divorce/property issues | Canadian Family Law recognizes separation status; the 2011 order and Canadian law establish separation in 2008 and make the property Martirosyan's separate property | Court refused to extend comity to establish a 2008 de facto termination date; Canadian order did not decide divorce/property and did not expressly find separation on Nov. 1, 2008; no abuse of discretion in declining to treat it as binding |
| Whether the de facto termination date should be Nov. 1, 2008 or Sept. 7, 2018 (valuation period) | Marriage continued in substance; parties cohabited at times, support payments funded the Canadian home, so valuation to Sept. 7, 2018 is appropriate | Marriage ended Nov. 1, 2008 when Sargsyan moved out and the marriage was irretrievably broken; 2008 should be the valuation date | Court chose Sept. 7, 2018 (appellant’s answer date) as within its discretion; trial court’s credibility findings and review of the totality of circumstances supported that choice; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court applied Rogers factors / made required findings for de facto termination analysis | Sargsyan: trial court appropriately considered totality and rejected 2008 date | Martirosyan: court failed to analyze Rogers factors and misapplied law favoring a 2008 de facto date (and failed to consider Canadian law) | Court was not required to recite each Rogers factor; as trier of fact it evaluated credibility and circumstances and reasonably concluded there was no clear bilateral breakdown in 2008; no legal error or abuse of discretion |
| Whether proceeds of sale of the Canadian home were marital and subject to equalization | Proceeds were marital because the home was purchased and maintained during the marriage and funded in part by support/payments during cohabitation | Proceeds were Martirosyan's separate property because parties were legally separated under Canadian law before the purchase | Court held the Canadian home equity marital and ordered 50% split of net proceeds; appellate court affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (trial court may use alternative valuation dates for equity)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (trial court as factfinder assesses credibility)
- Day v. Day, 40 Ohio App.3d 155 (10th Dist. 1988) (date of separation not automatically dispositive for de facto termination)
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (de novo review applicable to legal questions)