Ohio Case Law Review by Topic: May 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025

Naiman v. Naiman, 12th Dist. Butler No. DR21110972, CA2024-06-074, 2025-Ohio-1589

Attorney Fees
Marital Property: omitted assets, valuation
Witness: expert

Dated: May 5, 2025
Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding

The parties married in 2007, and Husband opened divorce proceedings in November 2021. The divorce was protracted, and included 6 days of final hearings, between June and October 2023. The parties disputed Husband’s disability and employment status: Husband began receiving 100% disability from Veterans Affairs in 2020, and left his employment in the pharmaceutical industry shortly thereafter. Husband had been earning between $89,000 and $220,000 annually. Under disability, Husband earned $44,400 annually.

Noting Husband’s vigorous exercise and weight training, the trial court ultimately imputed an annual income of $105,000 to Husband, based in part on testimony from a vocational expert witness.

The value of Wife’s multi-level marketing business was also a matter of dispute, with Husband’s expert assigning it $352,000, and Wife’s $26,000. Wife’s expert asserted that her business value relied on her personal participation and coaching of her downline, and was not a transferable asset. Husband’s expert, by contrast, applied a capitalized cash flow method, essentially treating Wife’s earnings stream as transferable value. The trial court accepted Wife’s expert valuation, noting significant constraints on the transfer of her business, and finding that Husband’s expert’s approach was too speculative.

In January 2024, the trial court issued its decision on the disputed matters. In that order, the trial court declined to award attorney fees despite earlier rulings in Husband’s favor on contempt and discovery, and it classified the cash Husband claimed as his separate property as marital property subject to division. A decree was entered in May 2024, subsequent to which Husband appealed, and Wife cross-appealed.

In his appeal, Husband alleged the following assignments of error:

  • The trial court wrongly found him voluntarily unemployed and imputed $105,000 income for child support;

  • The trial court refused to award attorney fees, despite earlier rulings in his favor on contempt and discovery;

  • The trial court treated $9,500 in cash as marital property instead of his separate property; and

  • The trial court undervalued Wife’s business by adopting her expert’s $26,000 figure instead of his expert’s $352,000 valuation.

In her cross-appeal, Wife alleged:

  • The trial court failed to classify and divide the silver coins and collectibles listed as disputed property.

A state that’s strong, bitter, and always well-caffeinated.

Subsequent to the decree, Husband began to receive income of around $130,000 annually, which Wife argued rendered his first assignment of error moot. Noting that “courts may indeed take judicial notice of mootness when circumstances warrant,” the Court opted not to, noting that Husband’s employment fell outside the trial court record, and his underlying health issues were unchanged. Husband asserted that his 100% disability rating from Veterans Affairs barred the trial court’s imputation of income under ORC 3119.05(I), but the Court disagreed:

We conclude that this provision does not shield him from a finding of voluntary unemployment for two reasons. First as Wife correctly observes, Husband receives Veterans Administration disability benefits, not Social Security disability benefits. Second, the record lacks the medical documentation that R.C. 3119.05(I)(2) demands—medical evidence establishing Husband’s “inability to work.”

Noting the above, as well as Husband’s own testimony and weightlifting lifestyle, the Court affirmed.

Husband argued the trial court erred by refusing to award him attorney fees, despite earlier rulings finding Wife in contempt and granting his motion to compel discovery. Civ. R. 37(A)(5)(a) mandates an award of attorney fees, absent a basis for exception, when a trial court grants a motion to compel discovery. The Court agreed with Husband, finding that no such exception was cited by the trial court in its decision. In affirming its magistrate’s discovery-sanctions order, the trial court was required to award related attorney fees to Husband or explain its reasoning for their omission. The Court thus sustained Husband’s assignment of error in part, insofar as it related to attorney fees from his motion to compel discovery.

The parties disputed $9,500 in cash Wife removed from the marital residence, which Husband claimed was a gift from a friend for legal expenses. The trial court classified the funds as marital property, allocating them to Husband subject to offset. The Court affirmed, finding that Husband failed to meet his burden of tracing the money as separate property. Wife’s testimony acknowledging the possibility of a gift was not sufficient to establish separate property by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Court likewise affirmed the trial court’s valuation of Wife’s business, finding that such determinations are soundly within the trial court’s discretion, so long as its determinations are supported by credible evidence. The trial court thoroughly examined the parties’ competing expert methodologies, and found that Wife’s transfer or sale of the business was practically impossible, severely limiting its value. Husband’s expert’s approach failed to reflect the constraints on transfer, relying instead on speculative assumptions of future income.

In her cross-appeal, Wife alleged that the trial court erred by failing to classify and divide the parties’ silver coins and collectibles. The Court agreed. The items were explicitly listed as disputed in the joint trial stipulations, yet the trial court’s decree made no mention of them. Because ORC 3105.171 requires classification of all property as marital or separate, the omission constituted reversible error.


Miller v. Bates, 2nd Dist. Darke No. 22CV00328, 2024-CA-9, 2025-Ohio-1679

Property: unjust enrichment

Dated: May 9, 2025
Reversing and Remanding

The parties in this case were never married, but were romantically involved and cohabitated over the course of several years during which Bates—through his LLC and personal labor—helped construct a residence on land Miller had purchased from Bates’ mother. When the parties separated, Bates sought recovery for unjust enrichment, and was awarded $64,217 by the trial court.

Miller appealed, arguing among other things that the trial court erred in its granting Bates’ claim for unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment requires a benefit conferred under circumstances making it inequitable for the recipient to retain it without payment. Bates, Miller argued, had voluntarily contributed his labor and received the benefit of living in the residence for 30 months without paying rent or expenses. Miller meanwhile paid for the vast bulk of construction expenses and purchased the land, using withdrawals from her 401(k) and proceeds from the sale of her previous home. In separate proceedings, Bates conceded that Miller “paid for all this,” referring to the various contractors hired by the parties, and all expenses and utilities except the home’s internet service.

Bates’ expectation of living at the property indefinitely was unilateral and unreasonable, and could not form the basis for equitable relief. Noting that unjust enrichment cannot be based on voluntary contributions or unconditional gifts absent fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith by the recipient, the Court reversed the trial court’s finding of unjust enrichment and its related award to Bates.


Miller v. Miller, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 19 DR A 08 0424, 24 CAF 05 0030, 2025-Ohio-1923

Attorney Fees
Marital Property: equalization, disclosure, investment account, retirement benefits, separate property, stock (RSU), tracing
Spousal Support
Witness: credibility, expert

Dated: May 23, 2025
Affirming

As part of the parties’ February 2021 pre-trial proceedings, Wife sought to exclude the report and testimony of Husband’s expert witness, based on it not having been provided 30 days prior to trial. Husband requested a continuance, but was denied, and his expert’s report and testimony were excluded.

Husband filed a motion to set aside the magistrate’s pre-trial orders, which the trial court denied. Trial ensued, the magistrate issued a decision and findings in the spring of 2022, and the trial court issued its decision and decree in April 2024. Husband’s appeal followed, asserting the following assignments of error:

  • The trial court erred in granting Wife’s motion in limine excluding his expert report and testimony.

  • The trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance of the trial.

  • The trial court erred in finding he had no separate property interest in:

    • the marital residence (Woodstone Drive),

    • the Bean-Oller Road lot,

    • brokerage accounts (Peachtree Wealth Advisors and PWA/Fidelity), and

    • the Fidelity Global 401(k).

  • The trial court erred in determining that restricted stock units were marital property.

  • The trial court erred in awarding Wife $85,000 in attorney’s fees.

  • The trial court erred in its calculation and handling of spousal support.

In opposing Husband’s first assignment of error, Wife argued he waived appellate review because he did not re-raise the exclusion issue in his post-trial objections to the magistrate’s order. The Court held, however, that Husband’s pretrial motion to set aside the magistrate’s orders preserved the issue for appeal. The Court also rejected Wife’s argument that Husband failed to proffer the excluded evidence, noting Husband’s repeated attempts on the record during the proceedings before the magistrate.

Finding Husband did not waive appellate review, the Court nonetheless upheld the magistrate’s ruling and trial court’s adoption thereof, excluding the testimony and report of Husband’s expert witness, and granting Wife’s motion in limine. In requesting a continuance, Husband failed to provide a ‘good cause’ justification. Wife’s August 2019 discovery requests expressly sought any expert reports Husband planned to use at trial, and Husband’s failure to respond ultimately led the trial court to grant a motion to compel discovery, filed by Wife. Husband would not identify his expert witness until July 2020, and waited until February 2021 (after Wife’s motion in limine) to produce a copy of his expert’s report.

Husband disregarded the case-management orders and the trial court’s local rules at his peril. He failed to timely file a motion to extend the discovery deadline or to seek leave to provide his expert report outside of the 30-days-before-trial deadline imposed by the case-management orders and local rules. We agree with the trial court that Husband failed to establish good cause for not complying with the court’s orders and local rules, and we find no error in the trial court’s decision to grant Wife’s motion in limine.

Citing similar non-compliance with the trial court’s case-management orders and local rules, the Court likewise affirmed the trial court’s denial of Husband’s request for a continuance of the trial.

The Court likewise affirmed the trial court’s findings as to Husband’s claimed separate, non-marital interests in equity in the marital residence, a real estate lot owned by the parties, a brokerage account, and his 401(k). Husband alleged that he used non-marital funds from the sale of his prior residence for the marital residence’s downpayment. He cited a HUD-1 statement corroborating this, which the trial court had excluded from evidence for his not having produced it during discovery. Having affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting Wife’s motion in limine for excluding evidence not timely provided, the Court found it could not consider this evidence.

“The trial court is the fact finder and is free to believe all, some, or none of the testimony regarding any particular asset. The trier of fact ‘has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page.’” Hawbecker v. Hawbecker, 2016-Ohio-5740, ¶ 31 (5th Dist.), quoting Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418 (1997). This court does not serve as the trier of fact. Rather, our role “is to determine whether there is relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the factfinder could base his or her judgment.” Pletcher, at ¶ 15.

Husband claimed a real estate lot owned by the parties was purchased using $185,000 from his inheritance, but again failed to provide admissible evidence and testimony to trace his alleged interest. Neither his expert nor his exhibits related to this could be admitted at trial, none of it having been timely provided. The Court found that the exhibits that were admitted at trial were often inconsistent and incomplete, and failed to prove Husband’s separate property claim.

The Court likewise affirmed the trial court’s findings that Husband failed to trace any separate property claim in brokerage accounts the trial court had deemed marital. Husband again, due in part to his failure to comply with discovery, relied on incomplete and inconsistent evidence. Further, the Court noted, the documentation he did provide showed numerous transfers in and out of the accounts during the marriage, with no details as to their marital or non-marital purpose. Thus whatever funds were in the accounts had been transformed into marital property. The Court similarly found that Husband had failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish his separate interest claim for his 401(k).

An award of $85,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses was also upheld by the Court. Husband argued that the award failed to consider Wife’s already significant separate property award, and his own spousal support payments during and after the proceedings. Noting that a trial court’s award of attorney fees is based on its own equitability determinations, and not reversible absent an abuse of discretion, and Husband’s own actions and insubordinate conduct, the Court disagreed.

Husband argues that the trial court was required to consider the parties’ marital assets and income and the amount of temporary spousal support in making an award of attorney’s fees. Yet both R.C. 3105.73(A) and Ohio case law provide otherwise.

The Court also affirmed the trial court’s handling of spousal support, finding no abuse of discretion and agreeing that the issue was moot in light of the later order terminating Husband’s support obligation.

Finally, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings that Husband’s restricted stock units were marital property and properly divided after adjusting for tax consequences. During its proceedings, the trial court corrected the magistrate’s failure initially to factor in the tax consequences of dividing this asset. Husband again provided very limited admissible evidence, and only his own testimony, and thus failed to prove his separate property claim.


Jayabalaji v. Dharuman, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 23 DRA 01 0023, 24 CAF 09 0059, 2025-Ohio-2230

Attorney Fees
Civ. R. 53: facial review of magistrate decision
Marital Property: equitable division, de facto date (termination of marriage), distributive award, financial misconduct, totality of circumstances
Witness: credibility

Dated: June 26, 2025
Affirming

Wife filed for divorce on 02/15/2022 but dismissed her complaint in early 2023. She refiled on 01/13/2023, and Husband filed his own complaint shortly thereafter. Hearings proceeded before a magistrate, who issued a decision on 06/26/2024 granting the divorce, adopting 10/25/2023 as the termination date of the marriage, dividing marital property, and finding financial misconduct by Husband warranting a distributive award to Wife.

Husband filed objections, but the trial court overruled them, and adopted the magistrate’s decision in its 08/20/2024 decree. Husband appealed, arguing four assignments of error:

  • The trial court erred in denying his request for a de facto termination date of 02/15/2022.

  • The trial court erred in finding financial misconduct and awarding Wife a distributive award.

  • The trial court abused its discretion in awarding Wife attorney fees.

  • The trial court abused its discretion in dividing marital assets, resulting in an inequitable allocation.

In objecting to the magistrate’s decision, Husband failed to provide a transcript of the hearings. As a result, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals were required to accept the magistrate’s factual findings as established. The Court’s review was therefore limited to questions of law or plain error only.

When the party objecting to a magistrate's decision fails to provide a transcript, the magistrate's findings of fact are considered established and may not be attacked on appeal. Doane v. Doane, 2001 WL 474267, *3 (5th Dist. May 2, 2001). Accordingly, we review this matter only to analyze whether the trial court abused its discretion in reaching specific legal conclusions based upon the established facts. Sochor v. Smith, 2000 WL 963110, *3 (5th Dist. June 28, 2000).

In his first assignment of error, Husband asserted that the marriage effectively ended when Wife first filed for divorce, in 2022. Noting trial courts’ discretion in determining when a marriage ended, and the presumption (unless doing so would be inequitable) that a marriage terminates as of the final hearing date in divorce proceedings, the Court disagreed. While Husband cited the parties’ separate living arrangements, finances, and retainer of counsel, he failed to provide sufficient valuation evidence tied to his proposed de facto date to overcome this presumption. Without a transcript or other means to review the record, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings, finding that the Dill factors (see below) had been properly applied. The Court, similarly having no transcript, limited its review and found no plain error in the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision and use of the final hearing date.

Several factors to consider as to whether a de facto termination of marriage date would be equitable includes whether:

(1) the parties separated on less than friendly terms, (2) the parties believed the marriage ended prior to the hearing, (3) either party cohabited with another person during the separation, (4) the parties were intimately involved during the separation, (5) the parties lived as husband and wife during the separation, (6) the parties maintained separate residences, (7) the parties utilized separate bank accounts or were/were not financially intertwined (with the exception of temporary orders), (8) either party attempted to reconcile, (9) either party retained counsel, and (10) the parties attended social functions together or vacationed together. Dill v. Dill, 2008-Ohio-5310, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.).

In his second assignment of error, Husband argued that the trial court erred in its financial misconduct finding, and distributive award to Wife. As before, the absence of a transcript necessitated reliance in the Court’s review on the magistrate’s findings of fact. These findings documented substantial and willful conduct on the part of Husband, including nondisclosure of assets and liabilities, and deemed Husband’s corresponding testimony not credible. Based on the record, only, the trial court accepted the magistrate’s finding of financial misconduct under ORC 3105.171(E)(4) and distributive award to Wife. Finding no plain error in the trial court’s decision, the Court affirmed.

Husband’s third assignment of error contended that the trial court erred in its award of attorney fees to Wife. In the magistrate’s decision, Wife was awarded $25,000 for attorney fees (she had accrued a balance of $110,000 at the time of the hearing), based on Husband’s conduct and the parties’ relative incomes. The trial court upheld these findings, deeming the award equitable. And the Court likewise affirmed, noting its “plain error” limited review, and the guidelines for such awards under ORC 3105.73.

In his fourth assignment of error, Husband asserted that the trial court failed in its division of marital property in myriad ways, including: the parties’ residence and his alleged separate interest therein; a separate residence in India and his alleged contributions thereto; a health savings account; gold and silver items; payments made by the parties and ongoing obligations to pay; the trial court’s restatement of allegations made by Wife, without including his denial; and bank accounts held by the parties.

As before, the trial court was compelled to limit its review to the record, due to Husband’s failure to attach a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing with his objections. The magistrate made detailed and substantial findings, which the trial court in turn reviewed, finding no error. Based on the record before it, the Court found no plain error in the trial court’s decision, and thus affirmed.


Gray v. Gray, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 03 DO 061978, 24CA012169, 2025-Ohio-2311

Attorney Fees
Civ. R. 60(B):
(vacate)
Contempt
Marital Property: life insurance (to secure property interest)

Dated: June 30, 2025
Affirming

As part of their 2004 divorce proceedings, Husband and Wife agreed to Husband’s maintenance of a $1M life insurance policy with Wife as beneficiary, child and spousal support payments to Wife, and monthly property division payments of $4,000 over 13 years. A party breaching this agreement would be liable for the other’s expenses and attorney fees.

In 2010, Wife sought a finding of contempt for Husband’s non-payment of property division payments. Husband responded with a Civ. R. 60(B) motion to vacate the agreement provisions requiring his monthly $4,000 payments to Wife. The parties settled, and Husband’s motion was dismissed. The parties agreed that Husband would resume payments, including toward the arrearage, dismiss his Civ. R. 60(B) motion, and provide proof of life insurance coverage.

In 2022, Wife again moved for contempt, alleging Husband had stopped his monthly $4,000 payments and had failed to maintain the life insurance policy. Husband again responded with a Civ. R. 60(B) motion, which the trial court denied. After a 2024 hearing, a magistrate’s decision found Husband in contempt and subject to 15 days incarceration (purgeable by a $20,000 payment and arrangements for the balance owed), and awarded Wife $4,200 in attorney fees. The trial court adopted the decision, finding Husband still owed $248,400. Husband appealed, arguing:

  • The trial court erred in finding Husband in contempt due to impossibility of performance under the decree;

  • The trial court erred by entering a purge order that is impossible for Husband to fulfill; and

  • The trial court erred by awarding attorney fees to Wife.

In his first assignment of error, Husband alleged that his circumstances proved impossibility of performance, and that he was unable to make the $4,000 monthly payments. Husband did not claim he had made the payments—he argued he could not do so. The burden of proof in such instances, the Court noted, falls on the party claiming impossibility of performance:

[T]he defendant’s financial condition and ability to pay [are] peculiarly within his own knowledge. They could not be known with the same certainty to the complainant, nor could she easily produce evidence to maintain the proposition were the burden of proof placed upon her.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Reisinger v. Reisinger, 2019-Ohio-2268, ¶ 19 (9th Dist.), quoting Liming at ¶ 20.

Husband alleged a loss of income since the divorce, due to significant health problems and a credentialing issue that restricted his ability to practice until it was resolved. The Court remained unconvinced, noting Husband’s decision to drain an IRA to purchase a home in cash, bank account with $145,000, ongoing charitable donations, and payment of $10,000 for his own legal fees. Based on these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Husband failed to make a good faith effort toward his payment obligations, and the Court thus affirmed.

Noting the same circumstances above, and the amount required relative to the amount Husband still owed Wife, the Court likewise dismissed Husband’s claim of unreasonable and impossible purge conditions.

In his last assignment of error, Husband argued that the award of attorney fees to Wife was inequitable, but—the Court found—failed to address or rebut the plain language of the parties’ agreement in which the defaulting party would be liable for the other’s expenses and reasonable attorney fees. Thus, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of $4,200 in attorney fees to Wife.



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.