Young v. Young
2017 Ohio 238
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey Young (Husband) and Joyana Young (Wife) divorced in 2010; decree required Husband to pay mortgages, insurance, taxes, utilities, and minimum credit-card payments on the marital residence until sale, then divide any net proceeds or deficiency equally; spousal support of $700/month would begin the month after sale for 36 months.
- Husband obtained bank approval for a short sale in 2011 but paid $8,500 to the lender as a condition of approval; Wife agreed only if Husband would bear that sum and hold her harmless. The short sale closed February 28, 2012; mortgages were satisfied but no sale proceeds remained to pay credit cards.
- Husband paid off the marital credit cards and sought reimbursement from Wife for one-half of the cards and $4,250 (half of the $8,500 payment). Wife refused.
- Husband moved in 2015 to enforce the decree seeking repayment, interest, and attorney fees; Wife counter-moved for contempt, alleging Husband failed to pay mortgage and post-sale spousal support.
- A magistrate found the $8,500 was not a post-sale “deficiency” and Wife was not liable for half of it; Wife owed half the credit-card balances, but that obligation was offset by Husband’s spousal-support arrearage (magistrate awarded Wife $700/month for March 2012–March 2013). Magistrate denied interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees for both sides. Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; Husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $8,500 short-sale payment is a "deficiency" subject to equal division | $8,500 is a deficiency from the sale and Wife must reimburse half | Payment was a pre-closing cash requirement to obtain short-sale approval, not a post-sale mortgage deficiency | Not a deficiency; Wife not liable for half of $8,500 |
| Whether the court erred by offsetting Wife’s credit-card obligation against Husband’s spousal-support arrearage without tax analysis | Offset prejudicial because court failed to consider tax ramifications | Division already settled; this is enforcement of decree, not fresh property division, so no tax recalculation required | No error; offset permissible in post-decree enforcement |
| Whether awarding retroactive spousal support (Mar 2012–Mar 2013) was improper because Wife allegedly cohabited before marriage | Wife cohabited at sale so support should have terminated and not be awarded retroactively | Wife did not cohabit until marriage in March 2013; spousal-support obligation was triggered after sale | Court found competent evidence Wife did not cohabit prior to marriage; retroactive enforcement of preexisting obligation upheld |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying interest, costs, and Husband’s attorney’s fees | Husband sought interest and fees for enforcing decree and costs from Wife | Magistrate denied; Husband had unclean hands (failed to pay spousal support) and Husband failed to object to denial of interest/costs | No abuse of discretion: fees denied as inequitable given Husband’s conduct; failure to object forfeited most claims for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. Austin, 170 Ohio App.3d 132 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review deferential to trial court findings on cohabitation credibility)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Sostaric v. Marshall, 234 W. Va. 449 (W. Va. 2014) (deficiency defined as difference between mortgage obligation and fair value of property)