2018 Ohio 3985
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Married 1990; two children now emancipated. Divorce filed by Julie (2011); final hearing Jan-Feb 2017; judgments Sept 7 and nunc pro tunc Nov 30, 2017; appeals consolidated.
- Garrette owned premarital minority shares in family businesses: Steinle GMC Cadillac, Inc. (auto dealership; active employment/management by Garrette) and Bro Corp. (holding company owning interest in Steinle Development; limited activity). Appellant acquired shares pre-marriage.
- Temporary orders (2011) required Garrette to pay temporary spousal support and treated children’s tuition as marital expense; a 2016 retroactive modification increased temporary spousal support and treated additional college-related expenses as marital and to be credited in final division.
- Trial court valued marital portion of Steinle GMC at $313,273 (split equally) and Bro Corp. at $188,472 (split equally), denied a $75,000 credit for education/medical payments, awarded Julie $20,000 attorney fees and a $120,000 distributive award; ordered Garrette to pay $440,000 to equalize distributions.
- Appellant appealed multiple rulings: denial of partial summary judgment on business assets; classification/valuation of business appreciation; denial of set-offs for payments for children and taxes; attorney-fee award; distributive award; and trial court’s authority to issue the nunc pro tunc order while appeal pending.
- Appellate result: affirmed in part and reversed in part — court held Steinle GMC appreciation marital, Bro Corp. appreciation passive separate (reducing equalization by half of Bro Corp. interest, $94,236), vacated Nov 30 nunc pro tunc entry as void for lack of appellate leave, remanded to credit spousal support paid during appeal and finalize settlement; parties share appeal costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Steinle) | Defendant's Argument (Julie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of partial summary judgment on business assets (classification) | Assets were premarital separate; appellee failed to show active appreciation so summary judgment should be granted | Genuine issues of active vs. passive appreciation remained for trial | Denial affirmed — genuine issues existed; burden did not shift to Julie to prove active growth at summary judgment |
| 2. Classification/valuation of business appreciation (manifest weight) | Appellant’s labor/role did not cause growth; appraisal shows passive growth | Appellee: Garrette’s ongoing management contributed to active appreciation of Steinle GMC | Court: Steinle GMC appreciation marital (affirmed); Bro Corp. appreciation passive separate (reversed for Bro Corp.) |
| 3. Credit/set-off for payments for children’s education and taxes | Garrette paid $66,321.82 for children’s education and paid tax shortfalls; should get set-off under temporary orders | Julie: records/receipts incomplete; some payments from marital account depleted under husband’s control | Court: No set-off awarded — trial court did not err in denying credits due to record deficiencies |
| 4. Attorney fee award under R.C. 3105.73 | Fee award improper; trial court failed to make statutory findings; based on delay and alleged frivolous appeals | Julie: award equitable given income disparity and extended litigation increased her costs | Court: $20,000 award affirmed — within trial court’s discretion after weighing conduct and disparity |
| 5. Distributive award and nunc pro tunc jurisdiction | Distributive award improper; trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter nunc pro tunc after appeal filed | Julie: distributive award justified by financial misconduct and prolonged litigation; nunc pro tunc merely corrected omission | Court: Distributive award affirmed as not an abuse of discretion; nunc pro tunc (Nov 30 entry extending temporary spousal support pending appeals) was void for lack of leave and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Middendorf v. Middendorf, 82 Ohio St.3d 397 (1998) (increase in value of separate property may be marital when due to a spouse’s labor or contributions)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest-weight standard of review in civil cases)
- Kreilick v. Kreilick, 161 Ohio App.3d 682 (2005) (burden on party asserting property is separate)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (trial court’s correction of clerical mistakes under Civ.R. 60(A) reviewed for abuse of discretion)