Sayegh v. Khoury
2017 Ohio 2889
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Sayegh (husband) filed for divorce from Samar Khoury (wife) after a 2005 marriage; both are physicians and there were no children of the marriage.
- Primary disputes at trial concerned division of substantial real estate and monetary transfers involving properties in Ohio and Syria; parties submitted extensive proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after a three-day trial.
- Trial court adopted Sayegh’s proposed findings (with modifications), ordered a judgment of divorce (filed Aug. 21, 2015), and allocated assets and debts; Khoury appealed several factual and legal rulings.
- Following trial, a car damaged a jointly‑owned commercial building; while repairing the façade, much larger undisclosed structural damage was discovered. Sayegh moved for relief from judgment under Civ. R. 60(B); the trial court granted relief in Nov. 2015.
- This court sua sponte stayed Khoury’s appeal and remanded for the trial court to finish disposition of the 60(B) matter; the trial court later dismissed the 60(B) motion based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Morris v. Morris, concluding lack of jurisdiction to modify property division by Civ. R. 60(B).
- The appellate court affirmed most property‑classification and distribution rulings, remanded limited issues (e.g., portion of bonuses earned before valuation cutoff; $9,000 Mercedes adjustment), and held the trial court’s Nov. 23, 2015 60(B) judgment void ab initio as exceeding jurisdiction under statutory limits on modifying property divisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sayegh) | Defendant's Argument (Khoury) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Local R.9 (entry preparation / 5‑day response) | Rule not applicable or superseded; entry properly filed | Court failed to give required 5 days to respond; prejudice | No prejudicial error; Khoury had ample opportunity to present positions; assignment overruled |
| Trial court adoption of Sayegh’s proposed findings / manifest weight challenges | Court reviewed submissions and evidence; adopted with modifications | Court merely signed appellee’s proposed findings and made findings against manifest weight | Mixed: most findings supported by competent, credible evidence; some math/valuation issues remanded (bonuses tracing; $9,000 adjustment) |
| Classification of Damascus property as separate (gift/inheritance) | Damascus was transferred as a gift/inheritance to Sayegh; deed and testimony show transfer and retained life estates for donor relatives | Khoury argued it should be marital property | Affirmed: trial court’s finding that Damascus was separate property supported by deed language, testimony and credible evidence |
| Civ. R. 60(B) relief to alter property division (scope / jurisdiction) | 60(B) relief appropriate to adjust allocation for newly discovered structural damage | 60(B) should not be used to modify property division absent statutory authority; Khoury contends trial lacked jurisdiction | Court held trial lacked jurisdiction to use Civ. R. 60(B) to modify property division per statutory limit; Nov. 23, 2015 entry granting relief is void ab initio; dismissal on Morris grounds affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for manifest-weight review of trial court findings)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Environmental Enterprises, Inc., 53 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1990) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment where competent, credible evidence supports trial court)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (trial court’s broad discretion in equitable division of marital property)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for reviewing abuse of discretion)
- Morris v. Morris, 148 Ohio St.3d 138 (Ohio 2016) (trial court may not use Civ. R. 60(B) to modify spousal‑support or property awards when statutory jurisdictional limits preclude modification)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 2014) (judgment rendered by a court lacking subject‑matter jurisdiction is void)