Settele v. Settele
2015 Ohio 3746
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Married in 1988; filed for divorce in 2011; custody arrangement designated appellee as sole legal custodian and appellant with parenting time.
- Trial spanned multiple days in 2014 to resolve division of marital property, especially a dental practice later reorganized as a single-member LLC.
- Appellee's expert valued the business using an adjusted net asset (asset-based) approach, excluding income-based and market-based methods.
- Appellant's expert used an income-based capitalization of earnings method, arriving at a higher valuation.
- Trial court valued the dental business at $313,286 (the “most conservative and directly relevant” figure) and allocated assets; spousal support set at $6,292/month with a potential for modification.
- Court reserved jurisdiction on modification of spousal support and ordered each party to pay own attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double dipping in valuation vs. income | Settele argues a double dip by using assets to value the business and then using the same assets to compute income for support. | Setteled argues this constitutes double counting under Heller I and Gallo. | First assignment overruled; no double dip found under asset-based valuation. |
| Validity of the asset-based valuation | Argues the NAV/adjusted net asset valuation is flawed. | Defendant contends valuation is reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. | Second assignment overruled; court did not abuse discretion in relying on Russell's NAV. |
| Allocation of insurance proceeds tied to business value | Proceeds should not be allocated to appellee if already included in business value. | Proceeds deposition not shown to remain in business assets; equalization warranted. | Third assignment overruled; court did not abuse in allocating proceeds to appellee. |
| Attorney fees award | Appellee seeks attorney fees under equitable factors. | Court did not abusively deny; discretion allowed. | Cross-assignment overruled; no error in denying fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Heller, 2008-Ohio-3296 (10th Dist. 2008) (double-dipping framework in asset vs. income should be considered case-by-case)
- Gallo v. Gallo, 2015-Ohio-982 (10th Dist. 2015) (analyze double dipping; court may remedy with asset split or other equitable remedy)
- Eddington v. Eddington, 2015-Ohio-1233 (10th Dist. 2015) (inapplicability of Heller in certain asset-based valuation contexts)
- Bohme v. Bohme, 2015-Ohio-339 (2d Dist. 2015) (double-dip framework not easily applied to closely held businesses; asset vs income distinction)
- Sieber v. Sieber, 2015-Ohio-2315 (12th Dist. 2015) (treatment of accounts receivable in asset-based valuation as present assets rather than future income)
- Kellam v. Bakewell, 2014-Ohio-4635 (6th Dist. 2014) (age, education, earning capacity considerations in support and equitable distribution)