Thompson v. Myers
2019 Ohio 2299
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Guardian Bridgett Thompson, appointed for Brenda Myers ("Wife"), filed a divorce on Wife's behalf against David L. Myers ("Husband"), with third‑party Delores Tisdall initially named.
- Parties had a longstanding marriage and owned Myers Machining, the primary marital asset; Probate Court authorized Thompson to file the divorce as guardian.
- Parties reached a broad partial agreement: divorce granted, many assets (including the business and certain real estate) to be sold with net proceeds divided equally; three issues remained for trial—spousal support, attorney fees, and equalization of bank accounts.
- Wife is adjudicated incompetent and requires substantial ongoing care; Thompson (the guardian) provided most care and seeks compensation/support for Wife’s care; Husband will be unemployed after sale of the business and has higher Social Security than Wife.
- Magistrate awarded permanent spousal support by equalizing monthly Social Security (Husband to pay $669.50/month after sale), found bank accounts effectively equalized once agreed asset sales are completed, denied additional equalization, and allocated attorney fees; trial court affirmed but awarded $12,000 of Wife’s counsel fees to be paid by Husband and retained jurisdiction over spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bank accounts should be included/adjusted as marital assets | Thompson: accounts were marital and should be equitably divided; trial should identify a de facto termination date and equalize accounts | Husband: accounts were addressed in the parties’ agreement; Husband’s $63,000 separate deposit was used to improve property that will be sold and divided | Court: no abuse of discretion — accounts treated as marital and effectively equalized once agreed asset sales/division occur |
| Proper amount/duration of spousal support | Thompson: court failed to fully account for Wife’s extraordinary, ongoing care needs and should wait until sale proceeds are known | Husband: after sale both parties will have essentially equal financial states and limited income (primarily Social Security) so modest support is appropriate | Court: magistrate and trial court considered R.C. 3105.18 factors; equalizing Social Security by awarding $669.50/month (after sale) was reasonable; retained jurisdiction for future modification |
| Appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) and due process for an adjudicated incompetent adult | Thompson: GAL appointment was improper and violated due process (relying on Thomasson) | Husband: GAL was warranted because probate‑appointed guardian (Thompson) may have adverse pecuniary interests; Wife had been adjudicated incompetent and parties had notice/hearing | Court: GAL appointment was proper—Wife was previously adjudicated incompetent and GAL was appointed after notice; omission of transcript by Thompson required presumption of regularity, so no reversal |
| Dismissal of Tisdall for lack of personal jurisdiction and effect on claims of concealed transfers | Thompson: dismissing Tisdall prevented recovery of assets allegedly transferred to her/trust | Tisdall/Husband: dismissal argued for lack of personal jurisdiction | Court: magistrate erred by dismissing without evidentiary hearing, but error was harmless because Tisdall’s dismissal did not affect the three issues tried; Thompson had separate probate concealment action and parties’ settlement contemplated dismissal of other probate actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (1982) (trial court has broad discretion in equitable division of marital property)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (1990) (standard for appellate review of spousal support)
- Thomasson v. Thomasson, 153 Ohio St.3d 398 (2018) (Civil Rule 75(B)(2) not applicable to competent adults; GAL permissible for adjudicated incompetents under Civ.R. 17(B))
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant must provide trial transcript; omissions lead to presumption of regularity)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (1988) (trial court must set forth sufficient detail to enable appellate review of spousal support award)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (duty of appellant to ensure necessary record portions are filed)