Glover v. GloverGlover v. Glover
Rendered on the 30th day of October, 2009.
. . . . . . . . . . .
DAVID S. PETERSON, Atty. Reg. #0007836, Peterson & Peterson, L.L.C., 87 South Progress Drive, Xenia, Ohio 45385
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
Richard L. Glover, Box 19, Rosewood, Ohio 43070
Defendant-Appellant, pro se
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
WOLFF, J.,
{¶ 1} This case is before the court on Richard Glover‘s pro se appeal of a trial court‘s decree of divorce. He contends that the court should not have ordered the parties’ marital residence sold by auction. He contеnds also that, for the purpose of determining spousal support payments to his former wife, Donna, the court miscalculated his income. We will affirm.
{¶ 2} Since the parties separated, Richard has been living in what was the marital residence, located on Archer Street, in Rosewood, Ohio. Hе has said on multiple occasions that, although the property had an appraised value of $106,000 in 2005, the current value of the property is $90,000. The trial court did not resolve the evidentiary conflict. The property is encumbered by two mortgages, totaling $70,189.91. It is also encumbered by a $31,641.65 federal tаx-lien.
{¶ 3} A magistrate recommended that the property on Archer Street be sold by auction. Richard objected. Overruling Richard’s objection, the trial court explained, “it is necessary to sell the real property to remove [Donna’s] name from the two mortgages against the property. The Court finds it has a duty to financially sever the parties from one another.” March 5, 2009 Entry Overruling Objections to the September 16, 2008 Report and Recommendation, the Supplemental Report and Recommendation filed September 19, 2008 & Order to File Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce no latеr than March 31, 2009, p.2. The court then explained why a sale by auction is appropriate: “The Court further finds the Defendant has shown by his past actions, he has no intention of following court orders. He has not filed tax returns for a number of years and he has not paid his temporary spousal support. Thе transcript is rich with Defendant’s disdain for local, state, and federal government. His behavior proves the only way the marital residence will be sold in a timely manner is to auction it off.” Id.
{¶ 4} In October 2007, soon after Donna filed a complaint for divorce, the trial court ordered Richard to pay Dоnna $1,500 in partial attorney‘s fees and to begin
“Q. Okay. And then you haven‘t paid the temporary attorney fеes either, is that correct?
“A. Absolutely not.
“Q. Okay. Now, when, you said that kind of firmly, why didn‘t you pay the 1,500?
“A. That would be a payment to you, is that correct?
“Q. Yes.
“A. I don‘t know of any contract that you and I have between each other to where I‘m obligated to you, sir.
“Q. So that‘s why you didn‘t pay it, is that correct?
“A. Absolutely.”
(Tr. 20-21). Then Richard was asked about the order to pay spousal support:
“Q. Okay. And then you didn‘t pay the $2500 per month, and why didn‘t you pay that?* * *
“A. Well, sir, I thought that I might respond by attempting to be cute and state that I haven‘t been able to find a money tree yet that money grows on.
“Q. Uh-huh.
“A. And I thought, well, I better not do that because the Court might find that offensive.
“Q. Okay.
“A. I thought, well, maybe I‘ll use the truth and the truth is that I don‘t have that kind of money. “Q. Okay.
“A. But then I didn‘t think the Court would accept thаt as a proper excuse. That‘s just simply an excuse. So sound reasoning takes precedent.
“Q. Uh-huh.
“A. For me to pay $2500 a month out of the money that I earn would force me to commit a felony, and I choose not to commit to be, a party to commission of a felony.”
(Tr. 21-22). His curiosity undoubtedly piqued, counsel asked Richard what sort of felony he would commit.
“A. Well, I‘m glad you brought that up. See, the money that I earn, my income is defined by the United States Supreme Court as the fruits of my labor and talents. That‘s my property, sir. It’s not community property. It certainly isn’t Donna’s property. Donna didn’t go out and makе it, I did.
“Q. Okay.
“A. I sweated for that.
“Q. Uh-huh.
“A. Now, as such, I have rights to my property. The United States Supreme Court has said so, including the State of Ohio. The law also says that deprivation of rights under color of law is a felony. It’s a felony in the State of Ohio. It’s a felony in the federal level as well, okay. Are you with me so far?
“Q. I’m following you.
“A. Good. The law also stаtes that any government employee, whether it’s a Court official, appointed or elected, a Court officer, which are lawyers, a law enforcement officer, in the commission of a felony, cannot claim immunity. So for me to be coerced into making that payment, to my conscience, is unconscionable. It’s immoral and it’s illegal. “Q. Well, thank you very much for your honest answer.
“A. Thank you. You’re welcome, sir.”
(Tr. 22-23).
{¶ 5} Despite repeated demands by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Richard has not paid federal taxes, or filed a federal-tax return, since 1994. As a consequence, the IRS placed on the Archer Street property the $31,641.65 tax liеn mentioned above. Counsel also asked Richard about the lien:
“Q. * * * These tax liens were as a result of your not reporting your income for those tax years, is that correct?
“A. The tax liens were the result of the IRS responding to my challenge to their authority to assess a tax, not only on myself, but on аny citizen of the United States.
“Q. Okay.
“A. And I submitted, as far back as 1994, a FOIA, a Freedom of Information Action, to the IRS to the Commissioner of the IRS, to the United States Justice Department.
“Q. Okay.
“A. And to the Secretary of the Treasury.
“Q. Yeah. You‘ve answered that. “A. I‘ve done that every three years since then.
“Q. Okay.
“A. And until they can provide me with a certified tax bill from the Secretary of the Treasury, I don‘t have a tax obligation.”
(Tr. 42-43). Donna testified that in еach year since 1994 she earned an income she filed a return under the married-filing-separately option and remitted any taxes owed.
{¶ 6} In the divorce decree, the trial court explained the situation regarding the Archer Street property this way:
{¶ 7} “Intertwined in the determination of the appropriate financial division and disposition of the two parcels of marital real estate is Mr. Glover’s testimony that he believes his money is his property and cannot be taken by any order. This belief has resulted in nonpayment of income taxes, failure to file tax returns and failure to cоmply with this Court‘s Order to pay temporary spousal support and attorney’s fees. The failure to pay taxes has led to federal tax liens being attached to the marital residence in the amount of $31,641.65. Further, as of the date of [the] hearing Mr. Glover owes Ms. Glover $20,000.00 in unpaid temporary spousаl support and $1,500.00 in attorney’s fees.” March 25, 2009 Final Judgment Entry Decree of Divorce, p.3.
{¶ 8} The court said that Richard’s failure to file tax returns is financial misconduct that reduced Donna’s equity in the property. Donna, said the court, is innocent with respect to this misconduct. “Based on Mr. Glover’s financial miscоnduct, the liens on the property and Mr. Glover’s admitted unwillingness to
{¶ 9} Richard claims that the forced sale will leave him homeless, and that the court had no basis for determining that his failure to file tax returns was financial misconduct. His sole grievance is that the court ordered that the Archer Street property be sold where he has agreed “to accept those mortgage responsibilities.”
{¶ 10} The trial court has statutory authority to order the sale of property and direct the use of proceeds.
{¶ 12} Nor can we say that the court erred in its decision to force a sale of the property by auction rather than permit a voluntary sale in the market. Although in general it is preferable that parties be permitted the opportunity to sell property voluntarily in the market, see Van Fossen v. Van Fossen (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 175, 176 (“an auction should not normally be ordered where there is a reasonable chanсe of a fair, timely and voluntary sale”), considering Richard’s behavior and beliefs, the trial court‘s skepticism regarding the likelihood of Richard‘s compliance with an order to voluntarily sell the property is not groundless. We cannot say the
{¶ 13} Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s order directing the Archer Street home be sold by auction. The first assignment of error is overruled.
II. Spousal support
{¶ 14} The court set spousal support at $2,000 pеr month for an indefinite period of time. The court also retained jurisdiction on the issue of spousal support. Richard contends that the trial court miscalculated his income for spousal support purposes. He contends also that because he lost his job he should not have to рay any support. Richard, an owner/operator truck driver, claims that the court based spousal support on his 2007 gross income, failing to reduce the gross amount for expenses like fuel, maintenance, toll fees, road assistance, license plates, insurance, meals, and showеrs. Like with decisions dividing marital property, an appellate court yields broadly to a trial court’s determination of spousal support, and looks only for abuse of discretion. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 218.
{¶ 15} Here is what the trial court said:
{¶ 16} “Testimony and evidence established that Mr. Glover is an owner/operator truck driver exclusively for McFarland Truсking. His gross revenues were $128,969.98 in 2007 with expenses deducted in the amount of $57,461.10. See Plaintiff‘s Exhibit H. Mr. Glover further testified that he had repair bills in the amount of $1,500.00 per month. However, Mr. Glover only produced one bill in support of this
{¶ 17} Richard, then, is plainly incorrect when he says that the court based spousal support on his 2007 grоss income without reducing it for expenses. Exhibit H is captioned McFarland Truck Lines Annual Owner/Operator Settlement Recap and is dated November 24, 2007. The settlement recap apparently was created by McFarland, and it contains a year-to-date break-down of Richard’s revenuе and expenses. The first section states the revenue he generated, and the last is a list of expenses. Richard explained, “before I ever get my settlement, they [McFarland] deduct those expenses from my settlement before I ever see the very first dime.” (Tr. 63). We note that among the listed exрenses are fuel, insurance, and repairs. Richard testified that McFarland pays any tolls or at least reimburses him for them. There is no evidence in the record of the amounts Richard spends on road assistance, license plates, and showers. Richard’s monthly business expenses do include $300 for fоod, at least according to a summary of expenses that Richard created, found in the record, although the food expense is not on the settlement recap. Richard’s summary also lists fuel and insurance, although the amounts differ from those on the recap. We note too that exрenses on the recap are not on the summary, like expenses for IFTA and Card Advance.
{¶ 18} Thus, the evidence regarding Richard’s business expenses conflicts.
{¶ 19} Richard also claims it is unfair that he must pay any support when he is unemployed and Donna has few expenses and is capable, according to the trial court, of working at least a full-time minimum wage job. Richard says that in January 2009, after his truck developed unrepairable mechanical problems, he lost his job. However, the evidence in this case was presented to the magistrate in April 2008.
{¶ 20} Richard claims he filed a Motion to Stay Spousal Support, around February 4, 2009, in which he said he had lost his job, but the trial court, Richard says, failed to rule on it. Donna responds that she is unaware that Richard filed this motion. Indeed, we have reviewed the record, and we did not find any evidence that such a motion has been filed. So we will disregard this allegation of error. If such a motion was filed, the trial court will consider it under its retained jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support.
IV.
{¶ 21} Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Hon. William H. Wolff, Jr., retired judge from the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to:
David S. Peterson
Richard L. Glover
Hon. Steven L. Hurley