Zeidman v. Zeidman
2016 Ohio 4767
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Barry and Cynthia Zeidman married in 1981; one adult child. Barry owns Zeidman Production Management, Inc.; Cynthia largely a homemaker.
- Divorce filed May 2013; temporary orders required Barry to pay spousal support and Cynthia to maintain household expenses pending sale of marital residence.
- Parties sold the marital residence; net proceeds were deposited into an IOLTA account and partially released for withdrawals by agreement.
- Dispute at trial focused on (1) allocation of roughly $81,000 Barry withdrew from a joint Charles Schwab account and whether Cynthia was entitled to half of funds Barry could not adequately account for, and (2) proper calculation of Barry’s income for spousal support.
- Competing expert analyses produced different three-year average incomes for Barry: Cynthia’s expert $148,774; Barry’s expert $138,914. The trial court adopted Cynthia’s expert and awarded Cynthia $4,200/month spousal support indefinitely.
- Trial court also ordered Barry to reimburse Cynthia $28,566 (one-half of the inadequately-accounted-for Schwab funds) from sale proceeds and denied attorney-fee awards to both parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barry) | Defendant's Argument (Cynthia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred ordering Barry to reimburse Cynthia $28,566 for withdrawn Schwab funds | Money was spent and no longer exists; court cannot divide non-existent property | Barry failed to account for ~ $57,132 of joint Schwab funds; equitable division and reimbursement appropriate | Trial court did not abuse discretion: competent evidence supported finding of inadequately accounted funds and ordering Cynthia one-half share ($28,566) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in calculating Barry's income for spousal support | Court should not have used Cynthia’s expert or income averaging; Barry’s expert adjustments to distributions were proper | Cynthia’s expert used a sound methodology; income averaging appropriate given fluctuating income | Trial court permissibly credited Cynthia’s expert (concerns about Barry’s accounting/manipulation) and used income averaging; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Cynthia attorney fees | (N/A on cross) | Cynthia sought fees due to income disparity | Trial court did not abuse discretion: Cynthia received spousal support and liquid assets and court found no equitable basis to award fees; each party bears own fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Middendorf v. Middendorf, 82 Ohio St.3d 397 (trial court has broad discretion in property division)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (framework for equitable division)
- Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (equal division starting point; consider R.C. 3105.171(F) factors)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (trial court must evaluate all relevant facts for equitable division)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (trial court has broad discretion on spousal support)
- Wilborn v. Bank One Corp., 121 Ohio St.3d 546 (American rule on attorney fees; statutory exception for divorce actions)