Ward v. Ward
2012 Ohio 5658
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Husband and Wife married on July 23, 2005 and had a child ten months later.
- Wife filed for divorce July 12, 2007; Wife obtained a domestic violence protection order against Husband.
- Temporary orders gave Wife residential parent status and required husband to pay support; Wife used marital residence; husband had supervised visitation.
- In 2009 the court adopted two agreed interim orders, including a shared parenting plan; several post-hearing motions followed, including contempt and emergency matters.
- A 2010 decree was deemed not final because it did not resolve all issues; subsequent agreed orders and temporary orders continued to govern parenting time.
- In 2012 the court issued a nunc pro tunc decree attempting to resolve unresolved issues; on appeal, several assignments of error were considered and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nunc pro tunc decree properly corrected the prior non-final decree | Ward argues the nunc pro tunc entry attempted to change substantive rulings. | Ward contends the prior decree was not final and nunc pro tunc is inappropriate. | Assignment I moot; remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether the trial court properly admitted or excluded Husband's Exhibits | Ward contends exhibits were improperly excluded. | Ward argues exhibits were properly admissible. | Assignment II overruled; court did not abuse discretion in excluding exhibits L and M. |
| Whether the trial court erred by ruling that post-trial orders were not vacated or merged | Ward argues those interlocutory orders should have merged into the final decree. | Ward contends they should not have merged and were enforceable post-decree. | Assignment III sustained; post-trial orders not properly merged. |
| Whether the court properly defined the period of 'during the marriage' for property division | Ward asserts May 16, 2003 to April 7, 2009 is inequitable and improper before marriage was ceremonial. | Ward contends the court can select equitable dates to determine marital property. | Assignment IV sustained; trial court erred in using May 16, 2003 as the start date; remanded for proper determination. |
| Whether separate funds used to finance Ranch Road properties were properly accounted for | Ward argues separate property funds were not credited correctly. | Ward relies on the unresolved nature of prior issues after remand. | Assignment V not ripe for consideration; contingent on the remand outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berthelot v. Berthelot, 154 Ohio App.3d 101 (2003-Ohio-4519) (nunc pro tunc limited to reflecting actual decisions; not substantive changes)
- Ferraro v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 149 Ohio App.3d 301 (2002-Ohio-4398) (nunc pro tunc corrections speak the record’s truth)
- State ex rel. Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97 (1996) (record reflects actual decisions; merger to final decree consolidates rights)
- Colom v. Colom, 58 Ohio St.2d 245 (1979) (interlocutory orders merge into final decree unless reduced to judgment)
- Klausman v. Klausman, 2004-Ohio-3410 (2004) (pre-marriage dates to determine 'during the marriage' require caution)
- Wells v. Wells, 2012-Ohio-1392 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard applied to marital property timing)
- Giusti v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 178 Ohio App.3d 53 (2008-Ohio-4333) (statutory interpretation and de novo review on marriage timing)
- State v. Standen, 2007-Ohio-5477 (2007) (standards for appellate review of trial court rulings)