BARBARA H. CARMICHAEL v. RICKEY L. CARMICHAEL
C.A. No. 11CA0036
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
December 10, 2012
[Cite as Carmichael v. Carmichael, 2012-Ohio-5811.]
STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF WAYNE SS: APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 10-DR-0374
Dated: December 10, 2012
BAIRD, Judge.
{¶1} Rickey and Barbara Carmichael had been married for 26 years when Mrs. Carmichael filed for divorce. During the divorce proceedings, the trial court concluded that the house the parties lived in during their marriage was Mr. Carmichael’s separate property, but the court awarded the house to Mrs. Carmichael. Although the magistrate made findings about why the distributive award of the house to Mrs. Carmichael was appropriate, the trial court did not. Because
{¶2} The parties were married in 1984 and lived in a house they built using Mr. Carmichael’s separate funds. Mrs. Carmichael filed for divorce in 2010, and the matter was tried before a magistrate. He filed a magistrate’s decision that divided the marital property between the parties. The magistrate’s decision also awarded the house, which was classified as Mr. Carmichael’s separate property, to Mrs. Carmichael. The magistrate explained in his decision the factors that he considered in making this award.
{¶3} The trial court entered a decree of divorce on the same day that the magistrate filed his decision. Both parties filed timely objections to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court overruled the objections in a brief journal entry filed in June 2011. As it relates to the award of the house to Mrs. Carmichael, the trial court wrote that “Plaintiff shall be entitled to the marital residence * * *.”
{¶4} Mr. Carmichael appealed the judgment, raising three assignments of error.
II.
Assignment of Error 1
The Trial Court’s allocation of the real estate, which was the separate property of [Mr. Carmichael], entirely to [Mrs. Carmichael] was against the manifest weight of the evidence and contrary to
§3105.171 .
{¶5} Mr. Carmichael has argued that the trial court erred in awarding the marital home to Mrs. Carmichael. Because the trial court did not make the findings required by
{¶6} In divorce proceedings, the trial court must determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property.
{¶7} Before further addressing the statutory framework, we first address Mr. Carmichael’s argument that a trial court cannot make a distributive award unless it is to facilitate a fair division of marital property or because of misconduct by one of the spouses. This Court has recognized that
{¶8} Generally, a spouse’s separate property should be awarded to that spouse.
{¶9} Here, the trial court awarded Mr. Carmichael’s separate property to Mrs. Carmichael, a distributive award of Mr. Carmichael’s separate property. It did not, however, comply with the statutory requirements of
{¶10} The trial court’s decree recognized that by awarding Mr. Carmichael’s separate property to Mrs. Carmichael, it was making a distributive award. Rather than making findings of fact to explain the factors it considered, the trial court’s judgment merely listed the documents it reviewed and concluded that “there [were] no errors of law or other defect on the face of the decision.”
{¶11} The trial court did not comply with the statutory requirement to make written findings of fact to support its decision. We must reverse the trial court’s property division and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See, e.g., Boyer v. Boyer, 12th Dist. Nos. CA2010–04–083, CA2010–05–109, 2011-Ohio-989, ¶ 18.
Assignment of Error 2
The Trial Court’s award of spousal support to [Mrs. Carmichael] was against the manifest weight of the evidence and contrary to
R.C. §3105.18 .
{¶12} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Carmichael argues that the trial court’s award of spousal support was against the weight of the evidence. We reverse the trial court’s
Assignment of Error 3
The Trial Court’s failure to rule on the objections to the Magistrate’s Decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by
Civ.R. 53 constitutes reversible error.
{¶13} Because of this Court’s resolution of the first assignment of error, the third assignment of error is moot, and this Court declines to address it.
III.
{¶14} Mr. Carmichael’s first and second assignments of error are sustained, and this Court declines to address his third assignment of error because it is moot. The trial court’s property division and spousal support award are reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
WILLIAM R. BAIRD
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, P. J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT W. ECKINGER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
LON R. VINION, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.