2019 Ohio 1504
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Michael J. Washek filed for divorce in Fairfield County, Ohio in September 2014; the parties were married in 1996 and have four children (three were minors during the proceedings).
- Multiple interim and emergency orders were entered during the pendency; by agreement and subsequent orders appellee (Michael) was designated residential parent and legal custodian of the minor children, with appellant (Alexandria, now Reddelle) receiving supervised or scheduled parenting time.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed and recommended that Michael remain legal custodian; the magistrate conducted a multi-day final hearing and issued a detailed decision addressing custody, property division, child support, and spousal support.
- The magistrate denied spousal support, imputed income to appellant for support calculations, made child-support obligations retroactive, and divided assets and debts (noting foreclosure of the marital residence).
- The trial court overruled appellant’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision; Alexandria appealed raising four assignments of error (duress in agreeing to custody order; due process and GAL bias; failure to consider domestic violence; financial errors including imputed income and treatment of certain funds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Washek) | Defendant's Argument (Reddelle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant agreed to custody order under duress | N/A (Washek sought custody; agreement appointed him legal custodian) | Reddelle contends she was under extreme duress and unwilling when agreeing to the March 2017 custody entry | No duress found; appellate court rejects claim—consent/remorse insufficient to show duress |
| Whether appellant was denied due process / GAL was biased and prevented proceedings | N/A | Reddelle asserts GAL prevented proper parent/child reconnection, GAL bias, and deprivation of due process | Claims waived for failure to properly object/cite record; no plain error found |
| Whether trial court failed to address alleged domestic violence by appellee | N/A | Reddelle asserts court ignored domestic violence and failed to protect her | Waived and not shown on record; appellate court declines to reverse |
| Financial errors: property division, spousal support, imputed income, treatment of $45,000 | Washek’s positions supported magistrate findings and testimony at trial | Reddelle argues trial court erred in valuation/division, denied spousal support, mischaracterized income and expenditures, and should treat $45,000 as marital property | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in property division; extensive spousal-support analysis justified denial; imputation of $50,000 upheld; other financial claims waived or unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243, 551 N.E.2d 1249 (Ohio 1990) (elements for finding duress in consent to agreement)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 421 N.E.2d 1293 (Ohio 1981) (standard of review for division of marital property in divorce)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion definition)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 616 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio 1993) (imputation of income and review standard)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 554 N.E.2d 83 (Ohio 1990) (spousal support award reviewed for abuse of discretion)