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

[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.