Beamer v. BeamerBeamer v. Beamer
Fred S. Miller, Baden & Jones Building, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
YOUNG, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Todd Beamer, appеals a decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, regarding property division and spousal support obligations. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the decision of the domestic relations court.
{¶2} Todd and plaintiff-appellee, Judy Beamer, were married in 1985. There
{¶3} The evidence presented at the final hearing on May 20, 2009 established the fоllowing relevant facts. Todd was an employee and 25 percent shareholder in Beamer Brothers Trucking, a closely-held subchapter “S” corporation operated by his family. Todd earned a yearly salary of $66,040 from Beamer Brothers. He testified that he did not receive any shareholder distributions. Todd also had an ownership interest in two additional closely-held businesses: Beamers Piggy Back Sales and Service, LLC, and T.A.B. Cincinnati Properties, LLC. Although he testified that he was the sole shareholder of Beamеrs Piggy Back and an 80 percent shareholder in T.A.B., Todd did not receive any employment compensation or shareholder distributions from either company.
{¶4} The record indicates that Judy did not work outside the home, as she was in very poor health and suffering from a self-described “terminal illness.” The parties stipulated that Judy‘s health prohibited her from seeking employment. Pursuant to the trial court‘s June 2008 temporary order, Todd paid Judy $2,000 in monthly spousal support. Judy also received $1,289 in private disability insurance benefits eаch month totaling $15,468 per year, and produced evidence showing monthly living expenses of approximately $3,895. As a result of her illness, Judy also incurred significant medical expenses. The record indicates that she had accrued $8,219.42 in unpaid medical bills.
{¶5} During the рendency of the divorce, Judy lived in the marital residence and Todd occupied a 28-foot travel camper on the premises of Beamer Brothers. Judy testified that because of her health issues, she did not want to remain in the
{¶6} The trial court issued its decision on the matter on May 22, 2009. In dividing the marital property, the court determined that the closely-held entities suffered huge losses in 2008 as a result of an economic downturn in the construction industry. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court found that there was no equity in the businesses to divide.
{¶7} With regard to the marital residence, based on the information provided by Todd‘s realtor, the trial court determined that the property was valued at $110,000, with a first mortgage balance of $101,276.1 The trial court awarded the property and $8,724 in equity to Todd. The court also ordered Todd to be responsible for the payment of Judy‘s unpaid medical bills to offset the equity he received in the property. The court further ordered Todd to pay Judy $1,685 per month in spousal support.
{¶8} The court subsequently incorporated its decision into a judgment entry and decree of divorce on July 13, 2009.
{¶9} Todd has appealed from the decree of divorce, raising two assignments of error for our review.
{¶10} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶12} In his first assignment of error, Todd contends that the trial court erred in dividing the parties’ marital property. He initially challenges the trial court‘s decision to offset the equity he received in the marital residence by requiring him to pay Judy‘s past-due medical bills.
{¶13} “A trial court has broad discretion in making divisions of property in domestic cases.” Middendorf v. Middendorf, 82 Ohio St.3d 397, 401, 1998-Ohio-403. Under
{¶14} The record indicates that there were very few assets subject to division in this case. In addition to the marital residence, the only assets to be divided were two vehiclеs, insurance policy proceeds totaling $7,967.29, and approximately $18,628.23 in Todd‘s retirement accounts. In its May 2009 decision, the court divided the equity in the vehicles, as well as the insurance proceeds and retirement funds equally between the parties. After dividing thе assets, the only marital debt involved the $8,219.42 in unpaid medical bills. The court found that “[g]iven that
{¶15} Todd argues that the allocation was in error because by requiring him to pay the entirety of Judy‘s bills, Todd was effectively left with no equity in the property. However, the trial court was required to equitably divide the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, and there is no dispute that the unpaid bills constituted marital debt. Moreover, the trial court specifically noted that Todd may be able to “significantly compromise” the amount owed in light of the fact that he had previously negotiated the settlement of $3,300 in unpaid medical bills for $1,500. Because the overall division was equitable in this cаse, we do not find that the trial court‘s decision requiring Todd to pay Judy‘s past-due medical bills constituted an abuse of discretion.
{¶16} Todd also takes issue with the trial court‘s decision to equally divide the insurance proceeds received by the parties for dаmage to the marital residence. The record indicates that in the fall of 2008, the roof of the parties’ home sustained damage as a result of a windstorm. The parties’ homeowner‘s insurance policy paid them total proceeds of $7,967.29.
{¶17} On appeal, Todd claims that Judy unfairly benefited from the distribution because as the homeowner, his insurance proceeds would go toward the repairs while Judy‘s distribution would remain unencumbered. He also argues that the cost of the repairs would exceed his shаre of the proceeds. However, as noted by the trial court, Todd had requested that Judy not make the repairs because he thought he could perform some of the work himself. Although he estimated that the cost of the repairs would be between $4,000 and $5,000, he had not surveyed the
{¶18} The court determined that regardless of whether Tоdd made the repairs himself or hired a company to perform the work, each party would be entitled to one-half of the resultant increase in the value of the property, if any. Although Judy‘s real estate agent opined at trial that the proрerty was valued at $119,000, the trial court noted that it had established a lower value of $110,000 by accepting Todd‘s claim that the residence was worth less because of the repairs needed to the roof. In addition, Todd would be entitled to any increase in thе value of the property following the repairs. As a result, it cannot be said that Judy gained any advantage as a result of the distribution and, therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s decision to evenly divide the insurance proceeds.
{¶19} Todd‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶20} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶21} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN IT ORDERED HIM TO PAY SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN AN AMOUNT THAT HE CANNOT AFFORD.”
{¶22} In his sеcond assignment of error, Todd challenges the amount of spousal support awarded by the trial court. He argues that the court failed to adequately explain the basis for its award, and that it did not properly account for his financial inability to рay the amount ordered.
{¶23} It is well-established that a trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether an award of spousal support is proper based on the facts and circumstances
{¶24} After the division of marital property, a trial court may order an award of reasonable spousal support to either party in a divorce prоceeding.
{¶25} Todd initially contends that he was deprived of an appropriate review on appeal because the trial court did not reference the factors of
{¶26} In its decision, the trial court stated that it considered all of the factors in
{¶27} Although Todd also claims that the trial court failed to take into account his inability to pay, the record indicates that the court considered the financial
{¶28} The trial court was certainly prеsented with a difficult situation in fashioning the spousal support award. However, based upon our review of the record, and the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, we cannot conclude that the court‘s decision to award spousal support to Judy in the amount of $1,685 per month was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable so as to constitute an abuse of its discretion.
{¶29} Todd‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶30} Judgment affirmed.
BRESSLER and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.