Ohio Case Law Review by Topic: January 1, 2025 through February 28, 2025

Koneski v. Koneski, Fifth Dist. Muskingum No. DA2022-0222, CT2024-0020, 2025-Ohio-38

Marital Property: equitable division, gift, separate property, tracing
Witness: credibility

Dated: January 8, 2025
Affirming

Prior to the parties’ 2010 marriage, Husband owned property with a former spouse. Following her death, he transferred the deed into his name. Subsequent to the parties’ marriage, they flipped several homes, ultimately acquiring their marital residence deeded in both their names.

During the trial court proceedings, Husband asserted that the marital residence had been funded through traceable proceeds from the sale of his premarital home. But the trial court, finding that any such funds were substantially commingled and noting Wife’s ‘sweat equity’ and the joint deeding of the residence, awarded Wife half of the equity therein. The trial court further assigned the full amount of insurance proceeds from a totaled vehicle to Wife as her separate property, finding that Husband had gifted the car to her.

Husband appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in deeming the parties’ residence marital despite Husband’s tracing of proceeds from a premarital asset; (2) the trial court erred by awarding Wife one-half of the equity in the marital home without sufficient evidence of her contributions; (3) the trial court erred by relying on joint titling in classifying the real estate as marital; and (4) the trial court erred by awarding Wife the insurance proceeds from the totaled vehicle.

The Court disagreed. While both parties agreed that the proceeds from the sale of Husband’s premarital residence had been used to purchase the first of a string of purchased/sold homes, Husband presented scant accounting of this amount going forward. Further, Wife’s ‘sweat equity’ in making improvements to the homes and handling of their sales herself (without the use of a realtor) demonstrated her equity contributions over time. Wife’s income had likewise contributed and was commingled alongside Husband’s alleged premarital interest through the term of the marriage.

Following the parties’ marriage, Husband had taken the step to add Wife to the title of the original residence. No evidence was presented during the proceedings as to where the proceeds from its sale were deposited (i.e., whether to a bank account in his or both of their names), or where any subsequent sales proceeds were deposited. Throughout the marriage, the parties jointly deeded their subsequent houses. The trial court likewise found Wife’s testimony more credible than Husband’s, during the proceedings. And the Court must defer to such findings. As for the trial court’s marital equity valuation, both parties had waived a separate appraisal, and the use of the auditor’s valuation likely redounded to Husband’s benefit, anyway.

As for the insurance proceeds issue: Husband’s agreement with the assignment of the vehicle (and thus its proceeds) to Wife was not just borne out by trial court testimony, but also in the terms of a draft settlement agreement. Finding the trial court’s decision supported by the evidence and both parties’ testimony, the Court again affirmed.

Michael v. Miller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. CV-18-894849, 113706, 2025-Ohio-271

Separation Agreement: stock, subject matter jurisdiction
Spousal Support

Editor’s Note: This case arises from civil proceedings subsequent to Appellant and Husband’s divorce. Husband was not among the Appellees.

Dated: January 30, 2025
Affirming

As part of her 2015 divorce, Appellant was awarded $15,000/month in spousal support from Husband through 2034, followed by $450,000 in quarterly payments over six years. Husband guaranteed Appellant’s interest via $450,000 cognovit note backed by a stock pledge agreement granting Appellant a lien on his 50% share in his family company’s stock. Appellant subsequently perfected her lien with a UCC filing with the Ohio Secretary of State.

The parties’ son subsequently and successfully sought judgment against Husband in his role as president of the family company, for alleged misappropriation of brokerage accounts and company distributions owed to the son (whose entitlement thereto had been gifted to him by Husband’s father). As part of the settlement, the son was awarded $2.87 million as well as Husband’s 50% share of the company’s stock, subject to Appellant’s lien.

In 2018, Appellant began a series of civil suits and appeals, aspects of which were eventually heard by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Appellant sought present ownership of interest in the company stock, based on her lien, and alleged Husband was in default of his support obligation. Appellant sought to intervene in Husband’s and son’s action to take immediate ownership of her interest in the stock awarded to the son. Ruling against her, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that Appellant’s lien remained intact through the transfer of stock to the son, and that her interest was a security guarantee, not an immediate right. Appellant opened a new action, claiming tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty, naming the company, their son, and Husband’s parents (Appellees). Appellees sought and were granted summary judgment, and this appeal followed.

Appellant argued that the trial court: (1) erred in granting summary judgment purportedly because her claims had already been adjudicated, when claims and allegations in three of her causes of action had not yet been litigated; (2) erred in granting summary judgment effectively in favor of parties who had not joined in the summary judgment motion; and (3) erred failing to disqualify son’s and the company’s legal counsel, whom she deemed a necessary witness.

The Court disagreed. Appellant’s claim of tortious interference failed to provide evidence that son or the company intentionally caused Husband to breach the separation agreement. And the son’s award of stock was still subject to Appellant’s lien. Appellant’s claim of civil conspiracy likewise failed as a matter of law, because it identified no separate actionable wrong committed by any alleged conspirators. Further, prior proceedings already established that Appellant’s lien was preserved and not extinguished by the stock transfer to son. Appellant likewise failed to cite any specific facts to support her conspiracy allegations.

Round on the ends, sharp in the analysis.

While the son’s grandparents had not formally joined the summary judgment motion, the trial court’s extension of the judgment to them was appropriate, the Court found, under established precedent because the claims against them were legally identical to the son’s and the company’s. Finally, the Court affirmed the trial court decision striking Appellant’s motion to disqualify son’s and the company’s legal counsel.

Wiesen v. Wiesen, 9th Dist. Summit No. DR 2022-03-0701, 31063, 2025-Ohio-446

Marital Property: equitable division, debts, distributive award, financial misconduct (dissipation)
Spousal Support: definition of income

Dated: February 12, 2025
Affirming in Part and Reversing in Part

The parties married in 2017, and entered divorce proceedings in 2022. During the marriage, Husband owned and operated two businesses, while Wife primarily contributed as a stay-at-home parent for the parties’ respective children (from previous relationships). In its 2023 decree, the trial court granted Wife a distributive award of $55,974 based on Husband’s financial misconduct, including his failure to secure financing for the parties’ marital residence. The decree also awarded spousal support to Wife, payable for a period of 24 months.

Husband appealed, arguing the trial court erred: (1) in its financial misconduct finding and distributive award to Wife; (2) in its finding of financial misconduct and contingent property division; (3) in its determination of the amount and duration of spousal support; and (4) in its award of attorney fees to Wife.

Noting that a financial misconduct determination requires trial court findings that a party engaged in “the dissipation, destruction, concealment, nondisclosure, or fraudulent disposition of assets,” and its manifest weight of the evidence standard of review, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding of financial misconduct.

In 2019, Husband entered into a land installment contract for the purchase of the parties’ marital residence. Under this contract, he was required to make monthly payments through March 2020, at which time he would pay any remaining balance due. This contract was subsequently amended so that the remaining balance was due in March 2021. In the event Husband failed to make his remaining balance payment, he would lose the equity built up to date, though he could continue to reside on the property though ostensibly as a month-to-month tenant.

Husband allowed the contract to lapse in March 2021, but continued to live on and make improvements to the property, and run his business from it. Husband claimed inability to secure financing to make the March 2021 payment, and in allowing the contract to lapse deprived Wife of her accrued equity interest in the property. The trial court further found that Husband intended to enter into a new land contract after the parties’ divorce. The Court found this conduct amounted to financial misconduct under ORC 3105.171(E)(4), as it was intended to deprive Wife of any interest in the home while preserving Husband’s access and future ownership.

The Court likewise affirmed the trial court’s distributive award to Wife. The trial court determined the amount of this award based on the appreciated value of the home ($57,500 based on an appraisal of $200,000 less the original $85,000 purchase price). Husband argued the award improperly treated him as owning the home outright and overstated the equity available. The Court rejected this argument, noting the trial court had not awarded Wife a property interest but rather used the increased value to fashion an equitable award based on dissipation of marital property.

[C]ontrary to [Husband’s] assertion on appeal, the trial court did not “issue” [Wife] property interest. Rather, the trial court made a determination as to what an equitable distributive award to [Wife] would be under the circumstances in this case. Those circumstances include the trial court’s finding that [Husband] intends to execute a land installment contract with [other party to land contract] to purchase the Property after the divorce is finalized and thereby create his own separate property interest after purposefully dissipating [Wife’s] interest in that same property.

Husband further alleged that the trial court erred in its assignment of debts to him that stemmed from his business operations. Noting that the factors guiding debt allocations overlap with those concerning the division of marital property, the Court again affirmed the trial court’s decision. Further, the Court noted, “[t]he majority of the debt distributed to [Husband] include liabilities he incurred as a result of his business dealings over which he had sole control.” Husband’s greater earnings capacity, and award of the businesses in the divorce proceedings, meant the trial court’s allocation of debts to him could not be deemed an abuse of discretion.

As for Wife’s spousal support award, Husband’s assertions the trial court overstated his income were undermined by the $55,000 in discretionary personal spending from his business account, which he admitted included non-business expenses. The Court also found that the trial court properly considered Wife’s limited by comparison earning potential, and that the support amount was thus reasonable under ORC 3105.18(C).

In his last assignment of error, Husband alleged that the trial court erred in its award of Attorney Fees to Wife. The Court agreed, finding that the trial court failed to assess the reasonableness of the fees as required by ORC 3105.73 and local rules. No evidence or affidavits concerning the amount, hourly rates, or time expended were submitted at trial, nor had the trial court made findings to support the amount. Finding the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded $10,000 in attorney fees to Wife, the Court sustained this assignment of error, and reversed the trial court’s decision.

Gauthier v. Gauthier, 12th Dist. Warren No. 07 DR 31415, CA2024-05-026, 2025-Ohio-501

Attorney Fees: abuse of discretion
Contempt
Separation Agreement: ambiguity, debts, equitable division, valuation, subject matter jurisdiction
Spousal Support: definition of income, modification

Dated: February 18, 2025
Affirming

At the time of the parties’ divorce in 2009, Husband retained a patent-holding entity, rights related to which were divided by the parties in their settlement agreement. Under the parties’ agreement, Wife would be entitled to participate in and receive proceeds from any infringement litigation or other enforcement actions brought by Husband’s entity, provided she contributed to the financing of the actions. If Wife declined to participate, she would receive 20% of any litigation proceeds, which would be considered spousal support. Under the agreement, no modification of this support obligation would be permitted.

The parties’ agreement also provided that Wife would receive 20% of any consideration received if Husband transferred his interest in the patent portfolio, which would also be deemed spousal support. The agreement reserved jurisdiction for the trial court to determine the value of any such received consideration.

The parties’ agreement obligated equal contributions from both parties toward a fund from which “patent costs” could be paid. The parties agreed to equally replenish any shortfalls in the fund. The agreement defined patent costs as “any attorney fees, expenses and/or costs related to the prosecution and/or maintenance of the Marital Patent Portfolio (including, but not limited to, patent maintenance fees paid to the U.S. Patent Office).

The parties subsequently entered into an addendum agreement, whereby Husband paid Wife $746,711 in exchange for her waiver of rights to participate in any future litigation, or patent or licensing enforcement. Wife retained entitlement to 20% of any proceeds from any such future proceedings.

Husband subsequently: (A) transferred ownership of the patent portfolio from the original patent-holding entity to himself; and (B) entered into an agreement with a third-party entity, licensing the entire patent portfolio for $1 million. In the years that followed, Husband incurred substantial costs. The fund from which patent costs could be paid was depleted in 2013, and Husband began sending written requests and notices to Wife, concerning the disappointing patent licensing returns, and the outstanding amounts due from her to replenish the fund. Husband’s first request was sent on 02/04/2015. In his last (03/23/2022) request, Husband informed Wife of an outstanding liability of $225,477, that he asserted was due immediately.

On 08/15/2023, Husband filed a contempt motion seeking repayment from Wife, a finding of contempt, and attorney fees. Husband requested and was granted the transfer of the matter from civil court back to the domestic relations trial court. Wife responded with her own contempt motion, alleging Husband failed to pay her the 20% she was owed when he transferred ownership of the patents to himself, and licensed their use to a third-party.

The trial court subsequently ordered Wife’s payment of her share of the patent costs, but declined to award Husband a lump sum judgment—based in part on Husband’s counsel’s initial representations that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and because the original motion lacked a prayer for such relief. In a subsequent motion, Husband sought lump sum payment of his award, arguing for the trial court’s jurisdictional authority to issue such judgment. Wife filed her own motion, alleging that: the parties’ addendum removed her obligation to contribute toward patent costs; ordering payment from her now would be unconscionable and “contrary to the statutory definition and purpose of spousal support;” Husband’s claim was barred by the eight-year statute of limitation in ORC 2305.06. The statute, Wife asserted, began to run no later than 02/04/2015, when Husband first demanded payment from her. Thus, when Husband filed his 08/15/2023 contempt motion, the window for his claim had passed.

Ultimately, the trial court ruled as follows:

• Denied Husband’s renewed request for lump sum judgment, applying judicial estoppel based on Husband’s prior litigation posture in an unrelated civil case;

• Denied Husband’s request for attorney fees, citing a lack of testimony from qualified counsel and insufficient evidence of reasonableness of rates and services;

• Denied Wife’s contempt motion, finding that the patents’ licensing was not a transfer of ownership from which she was entitled 20% spousal support payment;

• Denied Wife’s motion for reconsideration to the extent she argued the addendum eliminated her obligation to pay patent costs or that enforcement was unconscionable; and

• Granted in part Wife’s motion for reconsideration, finding that Husband’s claim was time-barred, and vacated its prior ruling that she pay $225,477 for her share of patent costs.

In vacating its prior ruling, the trial court applied a six-year statute of limitations, finding that the parties’ agreement constituted a separate contract between the parties, not subject to contempt actions. Both parties appealed.

In Husband’s appeal, he argued the trial court erred by not issuing judgment to him for recovery of patent costs Wife owed under their agreement. The trial court, Husband asserted, erred in its statute of limitations and judicial estoppel findings. Husband’s second assignment of error alleged that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it denied him attorney fees.

In Wife’s cross-appeal, she argued that the trial court erred in its initial (albeit vacated) award of $225,477 for patent costs, which she argued was unconscionable and stemmed from obligations that were eliminated by the parties’ addendum. In her second assignment of error, Wife alleged that the trial court erred when it failed to find Husband in contempt for not paying Wife 20% of proceeds from the third-party licensing agreement.

The Court ultimately reversed in part and affirmed in part. First, the Court agreed with Husband that the trial court erred in applying a six-year statute of limitations. Because the claim accrued no later than 2015 and ORC 2305.06 provided an eight-year limitations period for written contracts at that time, Husband’s 2023 contempt motion was timely. The ‘clock’ started, the Court found, when Husband first invoiced Wife via 12/16/2015 letter. The Court did not disturb the trial court’s finding that ORC 2305.06 applied. The Court emphasized that the version of the statute in effect at the time of accrual governs the limitations period. The trial court thus erred in dismissing Husband’s claim as time-barred, and in vacating the prior award of $225,477.

The Court also rejected the trial court’s application of judicial estoppel. Although Husband had taken a different jurisdictional position in unrelated civil case years earlier, the Court found no evidence that his earlier argument had been successfully adopted by a court or that it was clearly inconsistent with the relief sought in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of a lump sum judgment on estoppel grounds was also reversed.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees, however. While Husband had submitted an affidavit and billing records, the trial court found that he failed to present testimony or other competent evidence demonstrating the reasonableness of the rates or necessity of the services rendered, particularly in light of his $200,000+ request. The Court thus found no abuse of discretion.

As for Wife’s cross-appeal, the Court overruled both assignments of error. It rejected Wife’s arguments that the Addendum extinguished her obligation to share in patent costs or that enforcement of those obligations was unconscionable. The addendum, the Court held, expressly preserved key definitions from the original agreement, including the definition of “Net Proceeds” that referenced the parties’ joint obligation for patent costs. The obligation was separate from any support entitlement and was not inherently unfair or contrary to law.

The Court also affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Wife’s contempt motion, holding that the 2013 licensing agreement between Husband and a third-party did not constitute a “transfer” of ownership triggering the 20% spousal support obligation under the agreement. Although the license granted broad enforcement and sublicensing rights, it did not convey ownership of the patent portfolio.

Pursuant to the Addendum, and in consideration of $746,711.61, [Wife] relinquished her right to participate in patent enforcement, infringement, and licensing proceedings. Accordingly, [Wife’s] first issue for review lacks merit and is denied.

The case was remanded for further proceedings on Husband’s timely claim to recover patent costs.

Additional Links

Useful summary of announced delays to certain SECURE Act RMD provisions

6th Circuit case that goes into some mechanics of a non-ERISA ‘top hat’ employer plan

Blog Posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.