Krisher v. Krisher
Decision Date | 03 September 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 8-91-26,8-91-26 |
Citation | 82 Ohio App.3d 159,611 N.E.2d 499 |
Parties | KRISHER, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. KRISHER, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Dennis Day Lager, Bellefontaine, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Michael G. Minnich, Bellefontaine, for appellee and cross-appellant.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Logan County granting the parties' complaint and counterclaim for divorce, distributing the marital and separate property, and awarding spousal support to the wife/defendant.
Lamon M. Krisher ("appellant") and Marilyn V. Krisher ("appellee") were married for the first time in 1955. On October 8, 1982, the parties obtained a dissolution of their marriage and distribution of the marital property before the Logan County Court of Common Pleas. Under the separation agreement, appellant received title to the marital residence, but paid appellee the sum of $26,000 as compensation for her interest in the house and real estate.
On April 22, 1983, six months after the dissolution of the marriage, the parties were remarried to each other. Shortly thereafter, appellee repaid the $26,000, and appellant executed and delivered a deed granting joint and survivorship ownership of the marital residence to the parties as husband and wife.
The reconciliation proved to be unsatisfactory to both parties, and on November 29, 1989, appellant filed a complaint for divorce in the Logan County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee filed her answer and counterclaim for divorce on December 28, 1989. The case was tried before a referee on January 28, February 4, and February 21, 1991. The parties later filed written arguments, upon request of the referee.
On July 13, 1991, the referee filed his report, which included findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended orders. Objections to the referee's report were timely filed by both parties. Neither party requested or submitted a transcript of the divorce hearing for the court's consideration. See Civ.R. 53(E)(6) ( ). The trial court overruled the parties' objections and adopted the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, with certain specified modifications.
In its judgment entry of October 7, 1991, the trial court set out in detail the division of personal property between the parties. This distribution, which included a "cash award" of approximately $14,000 to appellee, has not been challenged by appellant. The court awarded title and possession of the marital residence to appellee, but also ordered an "equity award" of approximately $33,000, half the value of the marital residence, to appellant. However, rather than ordering appellee to pay the "equity award" in cash or property, the court ordered appellant to pay spousal support to appellee in the amount of $8,500 per year until appellee reached the age of sixty-two years, with a "setoff," or reduction, of $3,300 per year as payment to appellant for the "equity award" which was to be his equitable share of the parties' marital residence. Both parties appealed the court's final judgment.
Appellant has asserted the following assignments of error:
Essentially, appellant asserts error arising out of (1) the court's division of the marital property, and (2) the court's award of spousal support to appellee. Appellant's Assignments of Error Nos. I, II, and III raise the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in its distribution of the parties' assets. Assignments of Error Nos. I and IV address the alimony award. We will therefore address the assignments of error accordingly.
Property Distribution (Assignments of Error I, II, & III)
The Ohio Revised Code provides that the classification and distribution of assets in a divorce case are within the discretion of the trial court. See R.C. 3105.171. Ohio case law corroborates that rule. For instance, in Berish v. Berish (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 319, 23 O.O.3d 296, 297, 432 N.E.2d 183, 184, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated as follows:
Therefore, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, absent evidence that the court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Martin v. Martin (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 292, 294-295, 18 OBR 342, 343-345, 480 N.E.2d 1112, 1113-1115.
While the statute provides that "equal division" of the marital property is a proper "starting point" for the distribution, the final distribution is only required to be "equitable," as determined by the trial court after a consideration of the parties' awards of separate property. R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). Thus the only determination we may make is whether the court abused its discretion in its division of the separate and marital property.
First, appellant complains that the court erred in "tacking" the parties' two marriages for the purposes of property division, despite the court's clear statement that "[f]or purposes of determining separate and marital property and dividing marital property, the court defines [']during the marriage['] in this case as beginning April 22, 1983 to the date of final hearing, February 21, 1991." See R.C. 3105.171(A)(2) ( ). Since appellant clearly has misstated the finding of the court as to the property distribution, we overrule the pertinent part of the first assignment of error.
Regarding appellant's second assignment of error, while we find no error in the trial court's "accounting method," we do note that there is some discrepancy in the court's mathematics. The ultimate effect of the court's distribution of marital assets is that appellee owes appellant the difference between the $33,125 "equity award" to appellant and the $14,502 "cash award" which appellee should receive from appellant. Under the court's "accounting," which was an attempt to balance the division of marital property, the actual amount owed should have been approximately $18,623. However, the court, deviating from the referee's recommendations, awarded appellant a "setoff" against the spousal support in the amount of $3,300 per year for nearly nine years, or approximately $29,000.
Under R.C. Chapter 3105, the trial court in a divorce action must, pursuant to R.C. 3105.171 and 3105.18, fashion an "equitable" distribution of all the parties' marital and separate property before determining whether there exists, for either party, a need for "reasonable spousal support." The relevant sections provide:
"The court shall provide for an equitable division of marital property under this section prior to making any award of spousal support to either party under section 3105.18 of the Revised Code, and without regard to any spousal support so awarded." R.C. 3105.171(C)(3).
Further, the code section on spousal support reiterates as follows:
"[A]fter the court determines the division or disbursement of property under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code, the court of common pleas may award reasonable spousal support to either party." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 3105.18(B). See, also, Holcomb v. Holcomb (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 130-131, 541 N.E.2d 597, 598-600.
After consideration of the foregoing statutory language, we find that the trial court committed error in awarding a setoff against spousal support to compensate appellant for a cash award he is entitled to receive from appellee to achieve equity in the distribution of marital assets. We believe that the better approach to enforcing the award would have been to allow appellant a "distributive award" pursuant to R.C. 3105.171(E)(1) and (2). Those sections provide as follows:
One determination that the court must make in fashioning a distributive award is "[t]he economic desirability of retaining intact an asset or an interest in an asset." R.C. 3105.171(F)(5). Thus, we find no abuse of the court's discretion in its distribution of the real estate intact to appellee. However, we do find that the court's scheme for compensating appellant for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neel v. Neel
...the existence of separate property of parties and requires a court to consider nonmarital property. Krisher v. Krisher (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 159, 163, 611 N.E.2d 499, 501-502. Accord Guziak v. Guziak (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 805, 809, 610 N.E.2d 1135, 1137-1138 (in fashioning division of pro......
-
Willough G. Lust v. Robert O. Lust, 02-LW-2584
... ... the trial court's classifications of separate or martial ... property absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Krisher ... v. Krisher (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 159, 611 N.E.2d 499 ... An "abuse of discretion" occurs when a court's ... actions are unreasonable, ... ...
-
Monica L. Webb v. Larry S. Webb
... ... marital estate. Even so, the final division must only be ... equitable, not equal. Krisher v. Krisher (1992), 82 ... Ohio App.3d 159, 163. When making a division of the marital ... property, the trial court shall consider, among ... ...
-
William P. Stevenson v. Lynette Stevenson
... ... marital property. See Leathem v. Leathem (1994), 94 ... Ohio App.3d 470, 472; Krisher v. Krisher (1992), 82 ... Ohio App.3d 159. On appeal, such a decision is not subject to ... reversal in the absence of an abuse of discretion ... ...