Shoenfelt v. Shoenfelt, 2013 Ohio 1500

Robert and Jennifer Shoenfelt married May 2, 1987, and have two children; one child remained a minor when Robert filed for divorce Feb. 12, 2010; the final hearing occurred March 13–16, 2010.
Jennifer left the marital home in Nov. 2006 after an affair and separated finances, including separate bank accounts and minimal co-mingling after that date.
The parties proposed different de facto termination dates (Nov. 2006 vs Dec. 2009); the magistrate selected Dec. 2009, and the trial court adopted that date.
Post-Nov. 2006, the parties maintained separate residences and finances, with Jennifer purchasing a home in Dec. 2008 without Robert’s input.
The trial court used Dec. 2009 as the termination date for asset/debt valuation and ordered shared transcription costs; both sides appealed.
The appellate court reversed, remanding for a proper Dill-factor-based determination of the de facto termination date and addressing transcript costs on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
De facto termination date proper under Dill factors?	Robert argues Dec. 2009 is inequitable.	Jennifer argues Dec. 2009 better reflects separation.	Trial court abused discretion; remanded for equitable date per Dill.
Reimbursement of post-termination debts paid by Robert?	Robert seeks reimbursement for debts paid after Nov. 2006.	Jennifer contends no obligation for those payments.	Held moot after remand on termination date; decision to be revisited.
Are Jennifer’s medical school loans marital debts?	Robert contends loans were marital.	Jennifer argues they are non-marital.	Remanded; needs Dill-factor-based analysis consistent with new termination date.
Are Robert’s unvested deferred compensation assets marital?	Robert argues unvested assets should not be marital.	Jennifer asserts they are marital.	Remanded; analysis tied to equitable termination date.
Whether Robert should pay half transcription costs?	Robert argues costs should be shared.	Jennifer contends ruling proper.	Costs to be taxed as costs of action; both benefited from transcript.

Dill v. Dill, 179 Ohio App.3d 14 (3d Dist. 2008) (guides Dill factors for de facto termination dates)
Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (1982) (set framework for using de facto date when equitable)
Fisher v. Fisher, 3d Dist. No. 7-01-12 (2002) (equitable considerations for termination-date choice ( Dill context))
Mantle v. Sherry, 2003-Ohio-6058 (10th Dist.) (emphasizes looking at actual relationship, not formal dates)
Bowen v. Bowen, 132 Ohio App.3d 616 (9th Dist. 1999) (final hearing date presumptive termination date; may deviate if inequitable)