Wells v. Wells
2012 Ohio 1392
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Married in 1989; two children; Carrie and Darren Wells separated in June 2005.
- Mr. Wells moved to Australia then Michigan; Mrs. Wells stayed home and managed the home.
- July 2005 separation led to a 2007 divorce filing and an agreed judgment designating custody and health insurance; Goodyear joined as party in 2008.
- May 4, 2009 trial court decision: de facto termination date July 1, 2005; spousal support of $20,000/month for 72 months; credits for prior payments.
- Appeals ensued; 2009 appeal dismissed for lack of final order; 2010 remand addressed property division and child support; final decree entered July 28, 2010.
- This court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether July 1, 2005 is the proper de facto termination date | Wells argues the date was incorrect | Wells argues the date reflects inequitable timing | De facto date upheld; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court properly divided property before spousal support | Wells contends property division was not properly addressed | Wells contends court followed statutory sequencing | Property division occurred prior to spousal support; no reversible error |
| Whether the court failed to value marital and separate property | Wells claims lack of value findings; assets not properly identified | Wells retained burden to prove which assets were marital | Court valued/divided assets; some arguments overruled; overall not error |
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence on needs/standard of living for child support | Wells argues needs and standard of living evidence should be admitted | Wells argues court may exclude such evidence | Evidence of needs/standard of living should have been admitted; assignment sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio Supreme Court 1982) (abuse of discretion standard for marital duration/valuation)
- Eisler v. Eisler, 24 Ohio App.3d 151 (11th Dist. 1985) (necessity of value findings for equitable division)
- Gullia v. Gullia, 93 Ohio App.3d 653 (8th Dist. 1994) (criteria for de facto termination and equitable division)
- Ostmann v. Ostmann, 168 Ohio App.3d 59 (9th Dist. 2006) (due process considerations in retroactive support)