Reynolds v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 25 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. L-20-1098,L-20-1098 |
| Citation | 175 N.E.3d 611 |
| Parties | Peter G. REYNOLDS, Appellee/Cross-appellant v. Patricia L. REYNOLDS, Appellant/Cross-appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Sheldon Slaybod, Toledo, for appellee/cross-appellant
John V. Heutsche, Cleveland, for appellant/cross-appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} In this divorce action, appellant/cross-appellee, Patricia Reynolds, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, issuing a divorce decree that dissolves appellant's marriage to appellee/cross-appellant, Peter Reynolds, makes provision for the care and custody of the parties’ minor children, divides the marital estate, and awards appellant spousal support. Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, we affirm.
{¶ 2} The parties to this action were married in New Hampshire on May 5, 2000. Over the course of their marriage, the parties adopted two children, S.R. and J.R., who were both minors during the pendency of this action.
{¶ 3} On October 16, 2017, appellee filed his complaint for divorce. In his complaint, appellee alleged that he and appellant executed an antenuptial agreement on April 14, 2000, three weeks prior to their wedding. Appellee attached the antenuptial agreement to the complaint and asked the trial court to adopt the terms set forth therein. On November 2, 2017, appellant filed her answer to appellee's complaint. In her answer, appellant acknowledged the existence of the April 14 antenuptial agreement, but challenged its validity.
{¶ 4} Thereafter, the trial court issued temporary orders concerning the parties’ children and finances and appointed a guardian ad litem for the children, and the matter proceeded through pretrial discovery and motion practice. On January 29, 2019, appellee filed a motion for partial summary judgment, in which he argued, in part, that the parties’ antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. Appellee also requested that the court determine that the property covered by the antenuptial agreement and the property he received as an inheritance from his father in 2012 was his separate property. Further, appellee moved the court to determine that certain real and personal property he acquired during the marriage was his separate property because it was traceable to his separate property from the antenuptial agreement and the 2012 inheritance.
{¶ 5} On March 27, 2019, the trial court issued its decision on appellee's motion for partial summary judgment. In its decision, the court noted that appellant did not file a memorandum in opposition to appellee's motion. The court found that the antenuptial agreement was signed by appellee on April 14, 2000, and then separately executed by appellant six days later. The court further found that the agreement was modified from its original form prior to execution as a result of negotiations between the parties, and noted that each party was represented by an attorney at the time of execution.
{¶ 6} The court, construing the antenuptial agreement, took note of the choice of law language contained in the agreement, which provides that the agreement "shall be governed, controlled and interpreted under the laws of the State of New Hampshire." The court went on to examine New Hampshire law, under which antenuptial agreements are presumed valid. The court applied this presumption, concluded that appellant did not overcome that presumption, and found that both parties entered into the agreement voluntarily after full disclosure was made as to the assets owned by each party at the time of the agreement's execution. Given the uncontested evidence relating to the execution of the antenuptial agreement by the parties, the court also stated that the antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable under the law of Ohio, where such agreements are not presumed valid. Thus, the court determined that the antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable with respect to the separate property of the parties, as set forth in two exhibits attached to the antenuptial agreement. The court refused to enforce the antenuptial agreement provisions relating to spousal support due to the "passage of time and the open question of the change in circumstances." The court went on to hold that appellee was entitled to "all property listed in Exhibit B that he can identify and has possession of or can trace the proceeds from the sale of such property to currently held assets." However, the court refused to classify certain real and personal property appellee acquired during the marriage as his separate property on summary judgment, because it took issue with the affidavit appellee submitted in support of his motion on that issue.
{¶ 7} Following lengthy discovery, the matter proceeded to trial on the following contested issues: (1) allocation of parental rights and responsibilities with respect to the parties’ children; (2) division of marital assets and liabilities; (3) appellee's alleged financial misconduct; (4) appellant's entitlement to spousal support; and (5) appellant's entitlement to attorney fees.
{¶ 8} During the multi-day trial, appellee called five witnesses, appellant called two witnesses, and both appellee and appellant testified. Following two days of trial, the parties agreed as to distribution of various items of personal property, both marital and separate, along with a distributive payment from appellee to appellant in the amount of $42,000. The parties prepared a consent judgment entry memorializing this agreement, which was incorporated into the trial court's decision and judgment entry of divorce. The matter then proceeded through two additional days of trial. At the conclusion of the trial, on May 19, 2020, the trial court issued a 47-page decision resolving the five contested issues and granting the parties a divorce.
{¶ 9} First, the trial court addressed the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities over the children. The trial court named appellant as the residential parent and legal custodian of the children, made her responsible for making the non-emergency medical decisions for the children, and awarded appellee weekly parenting time. The trial court determined that appellant's annual income was $90,588 and appellee's annual income was $332,184, which generated an amount of monthly child support in the amount of $2,340.26 under the Ohio Child Support Computation worksheet. However, the trial court found this amount to be "unjust, inappropriate and not in the children's best interest," based upon the children's lifestyle, the fact that the parents would be sharing extracurricular expenses and fees, and since each parent would be responsible for providing clothing for the children. After taking these factors into consideration, the trial court reduced the child support amount, and ordered appellee to pay monthly child support in the amount of $2,040. Additionally, the trial court ordered appellee to continue to pay for J.R.’s private school tuition.
{¶ 10} Next, the trial court classified and divided the marital assets and liabilities. At the outset, the trial court reiterated its prior determination that the parties’ antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, and proceeded to examine the parties’ assets and liabilities in accordance with that determination. The court found that the property listed on Exhibit B to the antenuptial agreement, as well as other property traceable to the property listed on that exhibit, would be classified as appellee's separate property.1 Later in its decision, the trial court expressly incorporated the terms of its decision on appellee's motion for partial summary judgment into its decision and judgment entry of divorce.
{¶ 11} Specifically, the court found that real property in Kewadin, Michigan (the "Torch Lake property"), was purchased and improved using appellee's non-marital property, and was therefore awarded to appellee.2 Likewise, the trial court awarded the parties’ property in Newbury, New Hampshire (the "Lake Sunapee property") to appellee, finding that it was purchased with a down payment of non-marital funds and renovated using non-marital funds. However, the trial court found that the appreciation in these properties’ values ($109,270 and $338,976, respectively) was marital property subject to division.
{¶ 12} The court also reviewed the classification of the parties’ marital residence located on Somerset Road in Perrysburg, Wood County, Ohio (the "Mansion"), which was listed for sale at the time of the trial court's decision. The court stated that the net sale proceeds from the sale of the Mansion, less $30,000 attributable to the down payment appellee made using his separate funds at the time of purchase, would be subject to division as a marital asset. Moreover, the trial court ordered the parties to "reach agreement as to the particulars of the sale" of the Mansion within 30 days of its decision and memorialize that agreement in a consent judgment entry. The court notified the parties that it would appoint a receiver to dispose of the Mansion if such an agreement was not reached, and it retained jurisdiction over the matter.
{¶ 13} Turning to the parties’ marital debt, the trial court found, consistent with affidavits filed by the parties, that appellee's total credit card debt and debt from loans taken from his retirement 401(k) plan was $95,000. The court further found that appellant's credit card debt and consolidation loans totaled $61,365. Based upon the nature of the debt, the duration of the marriage, the income of the parties after the application of spousal support, and its finding that appellee was the party who was financially responsible to care for the family home and the children during the marriage, the trial court ordered that "each party be responsible for their own individual debt and hold the other harmless therefrom."
{¶...
To continue reading
Request your trial