Ohio Case Law Review by Topic: September 1, 2025 through November 30, 2025

Horrigan v. Mould, 9th Dist. Summit No. DR2017051436, CA 31263, 2025-Ohio-4357

Separation Agreement: ambiguity, equitable division, deferred distribution

Dated: September 17, 2025
Affirming

As part of the parties’ 2018 divorce, Wife was awarded 10% of net proceeds (“defined as the gross amount of the proceeds received, less costs and attorney fees incurred… in obtaining said proceeds”) from funds resultant from Husband’s retained interest in family businesses, including as a result of litigation settlements and judgments, for a 60-month period. In 2023, Wife filed a motion to enforce the parties’ agreement, seeking payments from agreements reached by Husband and his businesses.

After some delay and rescheduling, an evidentiary hearing was set. Wife unsuccessfully sought further continuance, and a motion to compel discovery for confidential settlement material related to Husband’s businesses. Based on Wife’s testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court found Husband had received $72,500 in proceeds on behalf of his businesses, which he claimed he expended more than $207,000 to collect. Husband’s attorney argued that these legal fees meant he had received no net proceeds from which he would be obligated to pay Wife her share. The trial court conducted an in camera review of the confidential agreement or agreements for Husband’s businesses, but found no evidence of manipulation to deny Wife her interest in the proceeds.

The trial court awarded Wife $7,250 for her share of the proceeds, finding Husband failed to admit evidence of his legal fees, and both parties appealed.

In her appeal, Wife alleged 4 assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in finding she was not prevented from obtaining discovery, and that she had adequate time to conduct discovery, and in denying her motion for a continuance; (2) the trial court misinterpreted the decree by construing the term “receives” to mean Husband’s possession of the funds, rather than his entitlement, the latter being the parties’ actual intent; (3) the trial court erred in not awarding her additional proceeds based on Husband’s bad faith and delay in payment; and (4) the trial court’s award failed to equitably divide the proceeds, because Husband’s delays denied her additional amounts received outside the window of her entitlement.

In Husband’s appeal, he alleged 1 assignment of error: (1) the trial court erred by awarding Wife $7,250 in proceeds, when his net recovery after expenses was zero.

Turning to Wife’s second assignment of error first, the Court reiterated that “[a] separation agreement is a contract between the parties and is therefore subject to the same rules of construction that govern contracts. Hyder v. Pizer, 2002 WL 570256, * 1 (9th Dist. Apr. 17, 2002).” Trial courts, the Court wrote, must thus rely on the plain definitions of terms. Wife sought proceeds in excess of those awarded her, arguing Husband’s future entitlement if not possession constituted their receipt within the agreement’s 60-month window. The Court disagreed, and found no error.

The Court likewise overruled Wife’s third and fourth assignments of error, finding Wife presented no evidence of manipulation by Husband or intentional delays in his receipt of proceeds from settlements reached during the 60-month window, but paid to him after. Correspondence between Husband/his attorney/his brothers, and the record of the trial court’s review of a confidential settlement (which was the subject of Wife’s discovery requests), suggested no intentional delay or bad faith on the part of Husband.

Finally, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Wife’s motion for continuance of the evidentiary hearing, which occurred more than a year after the filing of her 2023 motion. Trial courts, the Court wrote, must be deferred to in matters of docket and discovery, and their decisions cannot be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

Turning to Husband’s appeal, the Court again affirmed. While Husband alleged his legal fees exceeded the proceeds awarded him, he failed to provide evidence itemizing these expenses during the hearing. And his affidavit concerning legal fees was not offered as an exhibit until after the evidentiary hearing.

Mann v. Muktarian, 12th Dist. Clermont No. 2020DRA01458, CA2025-01-004, 2025-Ohio-4404

Marital Property: equitable division, distributive award, retirement benefits, separate property, tracing, valuation
QDRO
Spousal Support: voluntary underemployment
Witness: expert

Dated: September 22, 2025
Affirming

The parties began divorce proceedings in December 2020, leading to a 9-day trial in 2024. Central to the parties’ dispute, Husband alleged a traced, pre-marital, separate interest in his employer 401(k). Husband presented expert witness testimony at trial, alleging his entitlement to 91.17% of the account. Following the trial, Wife was awarded $3,000/month spousal support payments, Husband’s separate interest in his 401(k) was deemed sufficiently traced, Wife’s request for a distributive award was denied (based on her insufficient efforts to find employment and Husband’s financial support to date during litigation), and Husband was ordered to pay $1,392/month in child support.

In her appeal, Wife argued: (1) the trial court erred in its award of $3,000/month spousal support payments for 84 months; (2) the trial court failed in denying her request for a distributive award; (3) the trial court erred in its award of Husband’s traced, pre-marital interest in his 401(k); and (4) the trial court erred in not awarding additional child support for the parties’ 18 year-old, who was still attending high school.

Noting the “broad discretion” given to trial courts in the amounts and timing of spousal support awards, the Court overruled Wife’s first assignment. Wife argued that the trial court offered insufficient bases for its award, but the Court disagreed. The trial court’s decision noted Wife’s lack of effort to find employment following the parties’ separation, despite possessing numerous degrees and an MBA. The trial court’s decision also included consideration of factors in ORC 3105.18(C)(1). Wife’s belief that the award is insufficient, the Court wrote, “does not mean the [trial court] abused its discretion by awarding her with less.”

In her second assignment of error, Wife argued that the trial court erred when it denied her a distributive award based on the disparity in incomes, from his equity in the marital residence. Trial courts retain broad discretion to render distributive awards as equitable and appropriate, based on the factors under ORC 3105.171(F)(1)-(4). Husband’s retained separate and pre-marital property does not in itself entitle Wife to a distributive award, and the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial thereof. Furthermore, Wife’s request sought an award from marital property: Husband’s equity interest in the marital home. Distributive awards, the Court wrote, are by definition assigned from separate property, and Wife’s request and argument were thus without merit.

Wife further argued that the trial court erred in accepting Husband’s expert witness testimony alleging a traced, non-marital interest in his employer 401(k). Wife argued the tracing analysis was fatally flawed due to a gap in statement availability from 2002-2008, requiring the “application of certain assumptions that were not supported by competent evidence.” She alleged funds could have been withdrawn during this time, but offered no evidence to support that this occurred. Husband had offered substantial documentation, notwithstanding the 2002-2008 gap, which the trial court deemed sufficient to meet the burden of proof for his claim. Noting its manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard in reviewing trial courts’ separate property findings, the Court again affirmed.

Turning to Wife’s last argument, the Court again overruled: finding no error in the trial court’s determination that the parties’ 18 year-old child was emancipated, despite not yet graduating from high school.

Etter v. Etter, 12th Dist. Warren No. 24DR44487, CA2025-04-025, 2025-Ohio-4512

Marital Property: gift, prenuptial agreement, separate property, tracing
Witness: credibility, lay

Dated: September 29, 2025
Affirming

Prior to the parties’ 2020 marriage, they executed a prenuptial agreement, which relevant text follows:

All property acquired from any source, including but not limited to, gifts, inheritances, from employment, relationships, future wages and salaries, or from other income, regardless of type, by either [Husband] or [Wife], after this agreement is signed, shall be and remain the sole and exclusive property of that person, including any income from that property, all appreciation and value of that property, and including any change of form through such property being traded, replaced or sold.

Prior to purchase of the parties’ marital home, Husband issued Wife a check for $198,000, which he alleged to the trial court was earmarked for the purchase and so Wife could demonstrate collateral for the mortgage lender. The check was memo’ed “gift,” but Husband testified he had not written this. The parties made other purchases, including a rental home, furniture, an RV, and a hot tub. The purchase and mortgage payments for the rental were made with Husband’s separate funds, as were the purchases of the RV and furniture.

A magistrate’s hearing was held in 2024, with the following findings adopted by the trial court: (a) the $198,000 down payment was not a gift to Wife, and was Husband’s traceable, separate property; (b) the downpayment on the rental property was Husband’s traceable, separate property; (c) Wife was not entitled to any proceeds from the rental, owing to Husband’s expenditure of separate funds for the property, and Wife’s sale/receipt of proceeds from the hot tub; and (d) the furniture and RV were Husband’s traceable, separate property. Wife’s appeal followed.

A trial court’s classification of marital or separate property is subject to review under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, and not reversible when “supported by competent and credible evidence.” Also relevant to its review, the Court noted: marital property does not include separate property—among other factors—that was acquired by one spouse prior to the marriage, or “that is excluded by a valid antenuptial or postnuptial agreement.” Finally, a party alleging an inter vivos gift bears the burden of proof for their claim, which a trial court will review based on the intention of the donor, and their full relinquishment of ownership and control of the alleged gift.

In her first assignment of error, Wife argued the trial court erred in determining the $198,000 downpayment was Husband’s separate property. During the magistrate’s hearing, Husband testified that the word “gift” had been added to the memo line of the check, and provided evidence that the payment had been intended for the purchase of the marital home. Noting its deference to trial court determinations of witness credibility, and evidence showing the shared-use purpose of the alleged gift, the Court overruled Wife’s argument.

In her next two assignments of error, Wife argued that the trial court erred in its award of the rental property, RV, and furniture to Husband as his separate property. The trial court, she argued, applied inconsistent standards in its award of the rental property, RV, and furniture (purchased/downpayment from Husband’s account as the immediate source of payment), and the marital home (downpayment from Wife’s account as the immediate source of payment). The Court disagreed, noting that the source of the funds for a purchase determined its marital/separate designation, not the immediate source of payment. And Husband had provided clear and sufficient evidence to meet his separate property burden of proof.

Finally, the Court rejected Wife’s fourth assignment of error, finding Husband’s payments from separate funds for taxes and insurance for the home, and Wife’s receipt of proceeds from the sale of the hot tub, offset any share of rental proceeds she might otherwise be entitled to.

E.A. v. A.A., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. DR-21-384289, 113654, 2025-Ohio-4583

Attorney Fees
Marital Property: equitable division, de facto date (marriage), distributive award, financial misconduct, omitted assets
Spousal Support
Witness: credibility

Dated: October 2, 2025
Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding

The parties held a religious marriage ceremony in 2014, thereafter held themselves out ias husband and wife within their community, exchanged rings, and cohabitated. Wife was financially reliant on Husband, who acquired several properties prior to their 2016 civil marriage (shortly preceding the birth of their child). Wife filed for divorce in 2021, and proceedings ensued over several years culminating in a January 2024 decree of divorce.

In the trial court’s 2024 judgment entry, various marital property was divided, and Wife was awarded spousal and child support payments, $150K for attorney fees, and Husband was ordered to pay the guardian ad litem (GAL) fees. Husband and Wife appealed, raising 9 and 4 assignments of error, respectively:

Husband’s assignments of error:

1. The trial court failed to impose reasonable time limits for trial, and failed to apply Evid. R. 611;

2. The trial court improperly exercised jurisdiction over 3rd parties without proper service;

3. The trial court erred in using 06/27/14 as the de facto date of marriage for marital property purposes;

4. The trial court erred in its determination of the parties’ incomes;

5. The trial court erred in its $3K/month (48-month term) award of spousal support;

6. The trial court erred in its division of property;

7. The trial court erred in ordering Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees;

8. The trial court erred in ordering Husband to pay all GAL fees; and

9. The trial court erred in finding Husband committed financial misconduct, and issuing a distributive award.

Wife’s assignments of error:

1. The trial court failed to equitably divide certain business interests held by Husband, and issue a distributive award;

2. The trial court failed to issue a reasonable award of spousal support;

3. The trial court improperly applied a downward deviation in its award of child support, without required findings; and

4. The trial court erred in not awarding Wife’s full attorney fees and expenses.

Addressing Husband’s de facto date of marriage argument first, the Court noted a trial court’s obligation to determine the date of a marriage for its marital and separate property classifications. A trial court may use another date, if it determines the use of the actual date of civil marriage would create an inequitable result. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Court found none: the parties acted and lived for all practical purposes as Husband and Wife, following their religious marriage. And the trial court’s use of the 2014 date was thus affirmed.

Noting what the trial court deemed were “unique issues and procedural complexities involved,” the Court likewise found no abuse of discretion or failure to impose reasonable time limits for trial. While Husband’s cross examination had been lengthy, it served to inform the trial court and its understanding of his assets and income. And Husband’s own evasive and sometimes contradictory testimony contributed to the length of the proceedings. Likewise, Husband undertook numerous actions prior to trial, which substantially delayed the trial court’s hearing.

The Court found no error in the trial court’s granting of Wife’s motion to add 3rd-party defendants (family members of Husband, whose ownership interests in properties he purchased were a matter of dispute during the trial). The involvement of these 3rd-parties caused no prejudice to Husband, and was a result of Husband’s own conduct.

Turning to Husband’s imputation of income claims, the Court again affirmed. Wife, despite testifying she hoped to earn more income after obtaining licensure, had earned less than the $18K amount imputed to her in years prior. Husband’s claimed $72-76K annual income (based on his federal tax returns) was contradicted by large reserves of cash found to be concealed by Husband, lavish expenses and travel beyond such claimed means, and a loan application wherein he claimed an annual income of $204,174.

The Court now addresses Wife’s first assignment of error: that the trial court failed to classify Husband’s interests in certain business interests as marital or separate property, and provide an equitable division of property. Noting a trial court’s first duty to classify property as marital or separate, the Court agreed. In its decree, the trial court found Husband owned interest in several gas stations, if not title ownership. The decree thus entitled Wife to a distributive award for these assets, which Husband had attempted to obscure, and the sale and distribution of which was not practical. The trial court failed, however, to classify Husband’s interests as marital or separate property, which determination the Court ordered on remand. Pending such classification, Wife’s related request for an increased distributive award was premature. Husband’s 6th assignment of error was likewise deemed premature on the same basis.

Based on its reversal and remand, above, the Court deemed Husband’s 5th and 8th assignments of error (spousal support and GAL fees), and Wife’s 2nd and 3rd assignments of error (spousal and child support) premature. ORC 3105.18 mandates that trial courts consider parties’ “relative assets” in setting appropriate spousal support amounts, which the omission of Husband’s business interests from marital or separate property classification prevents. Questions concerning payment of GAL fees and child support are similarly not yet reviewable, pending property classification.

Addressing the trial court’s finding of financial misconduct by Husband, the Court affirmed, noting that the ultimate amount of the distributive award due Wife from such finding, was not determinable pending the trial court’s classification of property on remand. For the finding itself, the Court applied a manifest weight of the evidence standard, and the presumption that trial courts are best positioned to assess the credibility of witnesses. The trial court’s finding that Husband committed financial misconduct was supported by evidence in the record, wherein Husband exercised control over businesses he claimed not to own, paid substantial business-related expenses, concealed cash, and provided evasive testimony regarding income and assets. Thus, the Court wrote, the trial court’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Both parties appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees, which the Court again affirmed. Noting its deference to trial courts in such awards, Husband’s financial misconduct and ability to pay (as documented by substantial sums paid in legal matters for his businesses), the Court found no abuse of discretion.

Reed v. Reed, 10th Dist. 15DR-2943, 25AP-179, 2025-Ohio-4857

Civ. R. 60(B): fraud, mistake, timely
OPERS
ORC 3105.171(I): prohibition on modification
Separation Agreement: retirement benefits, survivorship

Dated: October 23, 2025
Affirming

The parties began divorce proceedings in 2015, and in August 2016, a decree was entered with agreed-upon property division including as relevant to this appeal:

[Husband] shall retain as his own, free and clear of any claim of [Wife], all right, title, and interest he has or may have in his OPERS, which is currently in pay-out status. [Wife] waives all interest she has or may have in [Husband’s] OPERS.

Wife likewise retained full entitlement to her STRS benefits, with Husband’s waiver of any claim thereto. Wife was awarded her marital interest in Husband’s separate Ohio Deferred Compensation account via QDRO, which was entered in May 2016. At the time of the divorce, Husband was receiving monthly OPERS pension payments, which he commenced upon his retirement in 2014.

Husband died in December 2023, at which time Wife alleges she became aware there was no survivorship annuity payable to her. Because the parties were married when Husband retired, such election (in lieu of a joint survivor annuity, providing continued payment to a surviving spouse, the amount of which depends on a participant’s election) would have required Wife’s signed spousal consent form submitted to OPERS.

In November 2024, Wife filed a motion to modify the decree alleging that her consent had been forged, which she claims she discovered during the divorce proceedings and further corroborated in the deposition of the individual who witnessed and notarized the form. This individual acknowledged he had signed and given his seal to the document, but also stated he had never met Wife and would not have notarized the form without witnessing her signature. In her motion, Wife explained that she had believed—at the time of the divorce—that Husband’s single life annuity would be changed to a joint survivor annuity as part of the proceedings (Editor’s note: While Ohio systems allow certain changes—unlike most pensions—concerning survivorship post-commencement, the conversion of Husband’s single life annuity, even had Wife taken action at the time of the divorce, may not have been an available option. Similarly, Wife’s means to compel OPERS to convert a decedent’s single life annuity, had her motion prevailed, are unclear.)

The trial court denied Wife’s motion, finding Civ. R. 60(B) relief would not apply because Wife was made aware of Husband’s election during the divorce proceedings, and nonetheless agreed to waive any interest in his OPERS benefits as part of the marital property settlement. Further, the grounds on which Wife sought relief meant that her claim was barred, based on the proceedings occurring 8 years prior.

Wife appealed, arguing:

1. The trial court erred in denying her Civ. R. 60(B) motion as untimely; and

2. The trial court erred in failing to distinguish her waived interest in the pension from her interest in a survivor annuity.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Court began its opinion by reminding readers that under ORC 3105.171 “[a] division or disbursement of property or a distributive award made under [ORC 3105.171] is not subject to future modification by the court except upon the express written consent or agreement to the modification by both spouses.” The Court next noted the agreed-upon language in the decree, in which Wife waived “all interest she has or may have” in Husband’s OPERS benefits. By seeking survivor benefits, Wife was necessarily requesting a substantive modification of the property division.

Citing Walsh v. Walsh (Editor’s note: click here for EZ QDRO LAW’s previous summary of this case), the Court reminded readers that Civ. R. 60(B) cannot be used as a workaround to the statutory prohibition in ORC 3105.171(I), prohibiting a trial court’s modification of a decree without written consent of both parties. Without this consent, the trial court lacked authority to modify the decree, as sought by Wife’s motion.

The Court further held that, even if ORC 3105.171(I) did not apply, Wife was still not entitled to Civ. R. 60(B) relief, because her claim was time-barred. Claims based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud must be brought within one year of the judgment, which in this case had occurred 8 years prior. The Court thus affirmed.

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.