Hines v. Hines-Ramsier , 2011 Ohio 6093 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Hines v. Hines-Ramsier, 2011-Ohio-6093.]
    STATE OF OHIO                    )                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:               NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF WAYNE                  )
    ALLEN F. HINES                                      C.A. No.      10CA0059
    Appellant
    v.                                          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    BONNIE HINES-RAMSIER                                COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
    Appellee                                    CASE No.   07-DR-0451
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: November 28, 2011
    BELFANCE, Presiding Judge.
    {¶1}    Appellant, Allen F. Hines, appeals the judgment of the Wayne County Court of
    Common Pleas that granted a divorce from Appellee, Bonnie Ramsier, and divided their marital
    property. This Court affirms.
    {¶2}    Husband and Wife married in 2001 after living together since 1991. In 2006,
    Wife purchased a business called “Cycle Patch” with an interest-free loan for $100,000. Wife
    paid herself a salary of $1,000 per month from the proceeds of the business, and the trial court
    found that she used this income for household expenses. Since 2006, Wife has paid the previous
    owner back from the proceeds of the business as much as she is able whenever she can. As of
    the hearing in the divorce case, wife had repaid less than $20,000 on the loan, and the business
    had significant debt.
    {¶3}    Husband was awarded the marital home as his separate property, which had
    considerable equity. Spousal support was not ordered for either party. In dividing the marital
    2
    property, the trial court characterized Cycle Patch as a marital asset and awarded all of the assets
    and liabilities of Cycle Patch to Wife. The property division left both parties with a negative
    equity allocation, but because of the significant business debt, Wife’s marital indebtedness was
    significantly greater than Husband’s. The trial court ordered Husband to pay $32,766.50 to Wife
    to equalize the property division. Husband timely appealed. Because his two assignments of
    error are related, we address them together.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
    “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AFTER FINDING THAT THE ‘PATCH’
    BUSINESS WAS MARITAL BY AWARDING THE BUSINESS AND ALL
    ASSETS TO THE WIFE REQUIRING HER TO PAY ALL THE DEBTS IN
    CONNECTION WITH THAT BUSINESS AND THEN REQUIRING THE
    HUSBAND TO PAY FOR THE BUSINESS DEBT BY CLASSIFYING IT
    AS A MARITAL PROPERTY DIVISION HAVING HUSBAND PAY HER
    $32,766.00 DOLLARS.”
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
    “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY
    DIVISION AS THE DECISION WAS INCONSISTENT AND AN ABUSE
    OF DISCRETION.”
    {¶4}    Husband argues that the trial court’s property division constitutes an abuse of
    discretion. Specifically, Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding
    all of the assets and liabilities of Cycle Patch to Wife, resulting in a large negative allocation,
    then requiring him to pay $32,766.50 to her to equalize the property division. We disagree.
    {¶5}    R.C. 3105.171(C)(1) requires trial courts to divide marital property equally,
    except to the extent that an equal division would be inequitable. In order to “achieve equality
    between the spouses,” a court may also make a distributive award “if the court determines that a
    division of the marital property in kind or in money would be impractical or burdensome.” R.C.
    3105.171(E)(2). A distributive award is defined as “any payment or payments, in real or
    3
    personal property, that are payable in a lump sum or over time, in fixed amounts, that are made
    from separate property or income, and that are not made from marital property and do not
    constitute payments of spousal support[.]” R.C. 3105.171(A)(1). Although not specifically
    addressed by the statute, marital debt is also subject to allocation as part of the property
    distribution. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 12th Dist. No. CA2007-02-021, 2007-Ohio-6569, at ¶40. See,
    also, Wilson v. Wilson, 9th Dist. No. 05CA0078, 2008-Ohio-3195, at ¶9. An equitable division
    of marital debt may also be accomplished through a distributive award. See Vincent v. Vincent
    (Nov. 6, 1991), 9th Dist. No. 15016.
    {¶6}     In this case, the trial court determined that the marital assets consisted of several
    vehicles, some guns purchased by Husband during the marriage, the marital portion of
    Husband’s pension, and Cycle Patch.            The trial court divided the vehicles and their
    corresponding debt among Husband and Wife and awarded the guns to Husband. Because Wife
    was solely responsible for operating Cycle Patch, to which the trial court assigned a negative
    value of $87,998.00, the trial court allocated the business assets and liabilities to her. As a result,
    Husband’s allocation of debt was $390, while Wife’s was $65,923. The trial court ordered a
    distributive award of $32,766.50 from Husband to Wife, which equalized the division of debt
    between them.
    {¶7}     We observe that Husband does not challenge the trial court’s valuation of either
    the marital assets or the amount of marital debt. Husband has argued that the trial court abused
    its discretion by awarding all of the assets and liabilities of Cycle Patch LLC to Wife and
    equalizing the property division through the distributive award rather than dividing the assets of
    the business between them. In this respect, however, the question is whether the trial court
    equitably divided the entire marital estate, not any individual asset or liability. See Briganti v.
    4
    Briganti (1984), 
    9 Ohio St. 3d 220
    , 222 (“The appropriate consideration is whether the trial
    court’s disposition of these items resulted in a property division, which, viewed in its entirety,
    was an abuse of discretion.”). In light of Wife’s exclusive operation of the business, the trial
    court determined that awarding its assets and liabilities to her would achieve the most equitable
    division of property. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
    {¶8}    Husband’s assignments of error are overruled.         The judgment of the Wayne
    County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
    Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
    of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
    Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
    judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
    period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
    instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
    mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
    Costs taxed to Appellant.
    EVE V. BELFANCE
    FOR THE COURT
    5
    DICKINSON, J.
    CONCURS
    CARR, J.
    DISSENTS
    APPEARANCES:
    LAWRENCE J. COURTNEY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
    CHRISTOPHER A. SCHMITT, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10CA0059

Citation Numbers: 2011 Ohio 6093

Judges: Belfance

Filed Date: 11/28/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021