Stocker v. Stocker
2017 Ohio 8434
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hans and Jennifer Stocker married in 1997 and had three children; they formed Norville Enterprises, LLC (an Adam and Eve franchise) in 2010, operated day-to-day by Jennifer.
- Jennifer filed for divorce in October 2014; trial occurred before a magistrate in October 2015 and a magistrate decision issued February 2016.
- Major disputed issues: valuation and division of the marital residence, valuation/allocation of Norville Enterprises (Jennifer to retain the business), and child support including whether to cap combined income at $150,000.
- Two competing professional appraisals of the marital home: Jennifer’s $290,000 and Hans’ $323,000; magistrate adopted Jennifer’s appraisal and ordered Jennifer to keep the home subject to mortgage.
- Business valuation dispute: Hans’ expert (Hoge) valued Norville at $337,757 using an income approach; Jennifer’s expert valued it at $204,881 also using income approach but with different adjustments; magistrate adopted Hoge’s valuation and ordered an equalizing payment to Hans.
- Child support: parties’ combined gross income exceeded $150,000; magistrate and trial court declined to cap income at $150,000 for worksheet computation and set Hans’ support at $1,276.71/month.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jennifer) | Defendant's Argument (Hans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of marital residence | Jennifer urged acceptance of her $290,000 appraisal (comparables closer to marriage end) | Hans argued his $323,000 appraisal better reflected value and he would pay that amount | Court accepted magistrate’s choice of Jennifer’s appraisal; no abuse of discretion |
| Valuation/allocation of Norville Enterprises | Jennifer’s expert sought lower valuation; court nonetheless adopted Hoge’s income-approach valuation which produced higher value but resulted in equalization payment to Hans | Hans contended income approach ignored tangible business assets (bank accounts) and thus was improper | Court found income approach credible, trial court did not abuse discretion; no requirement to use only one method |
| Child support computation / $150,000 cap | Magistrate/trial court: do not cap; worksheets amount justified by children’s needs and standard of living (not extravagant) | Hans argued statute requires capping combined income at $150,000 for worksheet computation | Court upheld decision not to cap and not to deviate from worksheets; no abuse of discretion given findings on children’s needs and expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (discusses standard for property division in divorce)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Eisler v. Eisler, 24 Ohio App.3d 151 (trial court should determine value of marital assets)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (trial court has broad discretion to develop measure of value)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (equitable division depends on totality of circumstances; no single valuation rule)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (trial court discretion in child support matters)
- Tennant v. Martin-Auer, 188 Ohio App.3d 768 (appellate role is to check for competent, credible evidence)
- Huelskamp v. Huelskamp, 185 Ohio App.3d 611 (trial court may accept or reject portions of witness testimony)