Strauss v. Strauss
2011 Ohio 3831
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Married in 2001, one child P.S.; Wife worked part-time as a perfusionist, Husband as attorney and real estate investor.
- Parties separated in 2004, with ongoing disputes and court-ordered restraints and guardianship appointments.
- Custody hearings occurred in 2009–2010; Guardian ad litem appointed; Receiver appointed for business valuations.
- Judgment (June 8, 2010) awarded Wife primary residential parent and legal custodian; distributed marital property with a substantial distributive award to Wife.
- Husband was ordered to sell or otherwise fund the distributive award, replace funds in P.S.’s 529 plan, and pay substantial attorney, guardian ad litem, receiver fees and court costs.
- Husband appeals challenging custody, property division, and fee/orders; Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of parental rights | Wife should be primary residential parent and legal custodian. | Shared parenting or more time for Husband. | Affirmed; Wife awarded primary residential parent and legal custodian. |
| Division of marital property and economic misconduct | Husband engaged in economic misconduct justifying distributive award in Wife’s favor. | Property should be divided equitably with less or no distributive award. | Affirmed; court found economic misconduct and issued distributive award in Wife’s favor. |
| Attorney fees, Guardian ad Litem fees, Receiver fees and costs | Husband should not bear all ancillary fees and costs. | Fees and costs allocation should reflect conduct and litigation necessity. | Affirmed; Husband ordered to pay significant fees and costs. |
| Replacement of P.S.’s 529 college account | Not enough evidence to require replacement; funds were separate property. | Funds were marital/divisible as part of distributive award. | Affirmed; court found tracing failures and upheld requirement to replace funds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981) (defines marital vs. separate property and equitable division framework)
- Kong v. Kong, 2010-Ohio-3180 (Ohio) (best interests factors for custody and shared parenting)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999) (abuse of discretion standard in custody/divorce contexts)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (1990) (factors for spousal support and equitable relief)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (deference to trial court in custody determinations)