Smith v. Smith
2017 Ohio 7463
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Husband (Link) and Wife (Paulette) married in 1976; they operated small businesses, including L. Smith Pallets, LLC, which Husband ran and Wife helped fund/administrate.
- In Feb. 2013 the pallet-company building burned after Husband allowed liability insurance to lapse; Husband obtained a substantial line of credit to rebuild and continue operations.
- Wife filed for divorce in Oct. 2014; at trial the court named Wife residential parent, awarded child support, granted spousal support, and classified/divided marital property.
- The trial court valued the pallet company as marital property at $176,494, allowed Husband to continue operating it, but assigned remaining pallet-company debt solely to Husband and characterized Husband’s lapse of insurance as financial misconduct.
- Husband appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in finding financial misconduct under R.C. 3105.171(E)(4) and (2) the spousal-support award was improper in amount/duration or lacking sufficient findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husband's lapse of liability insurance and resulting loss/loan constitute "financial misconduct" under R.C. 3105.171(E)(4) | Wife argued Husband acted irresponsibly and that lapse amounted to financial misconduct warranting an offset and assignment of debt to Husband. | Husband argued the lapse was an inadvertent, poor decision without scienter or intent to defeat marital assets; obtaining loans to rebuild was necessary and not misconduct. | Court: Reversed trial-court finding of financial misconduct (manifest-weight standard). Lapse was poor judgment but not wrongful scienter; remanded for reconsideration of classification/division. |
| Whether spousal support award ($2,500/mo) was an abuse of discretion in awarding, amount, or duration | Wife argued she needed support due to disability, limited earning capacity, and long marriage; trial court considered statutory factors. | Husband argued award was unsupported by sufficient findings and possibly excessive. | Court: Affirmed spousal-support award. Trial court considered R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) factors; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and guidance for reversing on weight-of-evidence grounds)