[Cite as Doty v. Doty, 2023-Ohio-2519.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

JESSE D. DOTY,

Appellant,

 - vs -

BRANDI M. DOTY,

Appellee.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2022-01-002

O P I N I O N

7/24/2023

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

Case No. DR2020-02-0123

Joseph A. Cesta and Frank J. Schiavone IV, for appellant.

Cook Howard Law, Ltd., and Melynda Cook Howard, for appellee.

BYRNE, J.

{¶ 1} The Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, 

issued a decree of divorce to Jesse D. Doty ("Husband") and Brandi M. Doty ("Wife"). 

Husband appeals the portions of the divorce decree concerning valuation of the marital 

home, division of the couple's marital debts, and a "credit" to Wife in the calculation of the 

portion of the marital home's equity owed to Husband. For the reasons discussed below, 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 2 -

we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Husband and Wife married in 1998. Children were born of the marriage in 

2004 and 2009. In February 2020, Husband filed for divorce. The divorce was contentious. 

Because Husband only appeals certain portions of the divorce decree, we will only 

summarize the factual and procedural background relevant to those issues.

A. Husband's Motion to Sell the Marital Home

{¶ 3} While the divorce action was pending, Husband filed a motion seeking court 

authority to sell the marital home. At the time, Wife was residing in the marital home with 

the parties' children, and Husband was not living in the marital home. Wife opposed 

Husband's motion, stating that she wished to stay in the home following the divorce and to 

refinance the mortgage in her name. 

B. Wife's Motion for Temporary Spousal Support

{¶ 4} Separately from Husband's motion, Wife filed a motion to establish a 

temporary spousal support award for her support while the divorce proceedings were 

ongoing. Wife asserted that the parties had agreed to a division of jointly held marital debts 

associated with numerous consumer credit accounts and loans ("consumer marital debt"), 

and that the parties had agreed that each would pay their respective debts. However, Wife 

alleged that Husband was no longer paying his agreed share of the parties' consumer 

marital debt, which was negatively affecting her credit score. Wife asked the court for an 

order requiring Husband to pay her temporary spousal support "in addition to and in the 

alternative to an order for payments of debts." Wife explained that such an order would 

allow her to maintain the status quo during the divorce proceedings due to Husband's failure 

to pay his debts.
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 3 -

C. Hearing on Motions

{¶ 5} In October 2020, the parties appeared before a domestic relations magistrate 

to resolve numerous pre-decree motions, including Husband's motion to sell the marital 

home and Wife's motion to establish temporary spousal support. 

{¶ 6} At the hearing, Wife indicated that she would like to continue residing in the 

marital home because she and the children had been living in the home, because she had 

maintained the home, and because she had paid debt associated with the home. Wife 

indicated she was able to refinance the home but needed Husband to continue to pay his 

share of the parties' consumer marital debt. Regarding the consumer marital debt, Wife 

testified that the parties had orally agreed to divide, and each pay, their own portion of the 

consumer marital debt while the divorce was pending. Wife stated that both parties were 

paying their bills in accordance with this agreement until March 2020, when Husband 

refused to pay his portion of the consumer marital debt. Wife claimed that Husband's 

decision was adversely affecting her credit score, and thus was preventing her from 

refinancing the marital home.

D. Magistrate's Decision

{¶ 7} In November 2020, following the October 2020 hearing on these issues, a 

magistrate issued a decision and judgment entry ("Magistrate's Decision") indicating that 

the magistrate had reviewed the parties' affidavits of income and expenses and had also 

considered the parties' testimony and their demeanor during the hearing, and concluded 

that Wife needed financial assistance from Husband. 

{¶ 8} The magistrate found that Husband was not current on paying his portion of 

the parties' consumer marital debt and that this was "deliberate" and "financially destructive"

to Wife. The magistrate observed that Husband had sought relief from his consumer marital 

debt payments by falsely informing his creditors that he was unemployed due to the COVID-
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 4 -

19 pandemic. The magistrate found that this action "simply delayed the due date" of the 

debts and forced Wife to pay them. The magistrate stated that she would grant Wife's 

request for an award of temporary spousal support because "it is doubtful that [Husband] 

will pay any debt."

{¶ 9} The magistrate then formally divided the parties' consumer marital debt 

between Husband and Wife in accordance with Wife's description of the parties' oral 

agreement. The magistrate attributed consumer marital debt accounts totaling $33,909.76 

to Wife and consumer marital debt accounts totaling $30,081.52 to Husband. The 

magistrate ordered Husband to "pay temporary spousal support to [Wife] in lieu of an order 

to pay marital debts." Specifically, the magistrate ordered Husband to pay $1,500 per 

month to Wife as "temporary spousal support" and stated that "[t]he $1,500.00 amount 

includes the debts [Husband] was to pay as stated in [Wife's] financial affidavit, * * * as well 

as a partial payment towards the loan in which the marital residence is used for collateral." 

(The phrase "the loan in which the marital residence is used for collateral" is one of the 

various phrases the magistrate and court used to refer to the marital home loan. We will 

simply call it "the mortgage.") The magistrate's decision further stated that Wife "shall be 

responsible for paying the minimum monthly payments to all the creditors listed in section 

H on her affidavit of income and expenses with the exception of [Husband's truck loan]." 

Additionally, the magistrate stated that "[Wife] shall be responsible for payment of the loan 

in which the [marital] residence serves as collateral [that is, the mortgage] as well as all 

household debts associated with the marital residence (i.e.: Utilities, water/sewage fees, 

real estate taxes, etc...)." However, the magistrate did not indicate what specific portions 

of the monthly $1,500 temporary spousal support payment Wife was to apply to the

consumer marital debt, to the mortgage, or for her own support.
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 5 -

{¶ 10} Finally, the magistrate ordered that Wife could continue to live in the marital 

home and that Wife should take steps to obtain pre-approval for refinancing of the 

mortgage. The magistrate reserved for the final hearing the issue of whether the marital 

home should be sold.

E. Husband's Objections and the Court's Modification of the Magistrate's Decision

{¶ 11} Husband objected to the Magistrate's Decision, but only challenged the 

effective date of the temporary spousal support order. In February 2021, the domestic 

relations court issued a decision in which it agreed with Husband's argument that the 

effective date of spousal support should begin later than the date selected by the 

magistrate. The court affirmed all other aspects of the magistrate's decision and modified 

the decision only as to the effective date of temporary spousal support.

F. Contested Hearing

{¶ 12} The case proceeded to a three-day contested hearing in March and May of 

2021. Relevant to this appeal, the parties disputed the value of the marital home. Each 

presented their own appraisals and related evidence. 

{¶ 13} Wife called appraiser David McFarland to testify and submitted McFarland's 

appraisal report. McFarland's report valued the marital home at $252,500 and was 

premised on comparable sales in 2019 and 2020. Husband submitted the report of his 

appraiser, Kathryn Wuest. Wuest valued the home at $290,000 and also premised her 

appraisal on 2019 and 2020 comparable sales. On the final day of the hearing, Husband 

called Zachary Ferrell, a realtor, to testify. Ferrell testified about the favorable housing 

market at the time of the hearing. The realtor testified as to the price he would currently list 

the home for sale, which was anywhere between $400,000 and $430,000.
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 6 -

G. Court's Decision

{¶ 14} In June 2021, the domestic relations court issued a written decision ("June 

2021 Decision") on the contested issues that had been addressed at the hearing held in 

March and May 2021. The court found that Husband's appraiser – Wuest – presented the 

more persuasive appraisal as to the valuation of the marital home. The court therefore 

valued the marital home at $290,000 for purposes of the equitable division of marital assets. 

The court also granted Wife's request to keep the marital home and refinance it in her name. 

The court stated that if Wife could obtain refinancing by a date selected by the court, and if 

Wife then chose to refinance, she was obligated to pay Husband "one-half of net equity less 

mortgage payment credit to her and equalization payment to her calculated" by a formula 

set forth in the June 2021 Decision.

{¶ 15} The domestic relations court also reiterated its February 2021 decision 

confirming Husband's temporary spousal support payments to Wife, and the applicable 

payment dates. 

H. Divorce Decree

{¶ 16} In December 2021, the domestic relations court issued the parties a decree 

of divorce ("Divorce Decree"). The Divorce Decree returned to the issue of the parties'

consumer marital debt and divided the credit card accounts and loans included in the 

consumer marital debt between the parties. Based on which party incurred the debts, the 

court ordered Wife to pay six consumer marital debt accounts totaling $26,746.52, and 

ordered Husband to pay four consumer marital debt accounts totaling $28,652.51. The 

Divorce Decree did not indicate what specific payments Wife had applied to pay down these 

amounts from the $33,907.76 and $30,081.52 amounts indicated in the Magistrate's 

Decision, or the sources of the funds Wife used in making those payments. 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 7 -

{¶ 17} The Divorce Decree reiterated the court's previous temporary spousal support 

order, and stated the date on which Husband's temporary spousal support payments 

terminated.

{¶ 18} The Divorce Decree also returned to the issue of the division of the marital 

home's equity after refinancing of the mortgage in Wife's name. The court again stated that 

the marital home's value was "at least $290,000.00." The Divorce Decree then repeated 

the language in the June 2021 Decision regarding Wife's request to keep and refinance the 

home, but the Divorce Decree changed the June 2021 Decision's formula regarding Wife's 

post-refinancing payment to Husband. The new language stated:

The Court grants Wife an opportunity to refinance the marital 

home under the following conditions. The refinance terms must 

include lender appraised value of no less than $290,000.00 and 

Wife must be approved for refinancing on or before July 15, 

2021. If Wife chooses to refinance, she will be obligated to pay 

Husband one-half of net equity less mortgage payment credit to 

her and equalization payment to her calculated as follows:

Home Value $290,000.00

(less) Mortgage Balance (-)$224,712.021

=equity value $65,287.98

=value to be equally divided (50% to W) (50% to H)

Deducted from Husband's one-half share:

(less) Mortgage payments paid by Wife July 2020 to closingcalculated at refinance closing

(less) Equalization H to W (-)$6,856.722

=Amount owed to H after his share reduced by 

equalization payment & mortgage payments

{¶ 19} Husband appealed, raising three assignments of error.

II. Law and Analysis

1. This amount, $224,712.02, was the mortgage balance as of June 2020.

2. The domestic relations court drew the $6,856.72 equalization payment amount from the "recapitulation"

table on page 10 of the June 2021 Decision. That table lists all the parties' assets and debts, indicates which 

assets and debts are to be assigned to which party, and concludes that Husband would have to pay $6,856.72 

to equalize the division of assets. 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 8 -

A. Valuation of Real Estate

{¶ 20} Husband's Assignment of Error No. 1 states:

{¶ 21} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ITS 

VALUATION OF THE REAL ESTATE.

{¶ 22} Husband argues that the domestic relations court abused its discretion 

because its determination of the value of the marital home was not supported by competent, 

credible evidence. Husband contends that the appraisal relied upon by the court (that is, 

Wuest's appraisal, the one Husband had himself submitted and relied on at the contested 

hearing in March and May 2021) was outdated and that the court ignored evidence that the 

real estate market had significantly changed from the time the appraisals were conducted 

in 2019 and 2020 to the final hearing date, in May 2021. Husband argues that the appraisal 

chosen by the court results in an "enormous and inequitable" windfall to Wife. Husband 

asks this court to order the marital home sold and the value divided, or, alternatively, that 

this court determine that the value of the marital home is between $400,000 to $430,000. 

In other words, Husband prefers to receive his portion of $430,000, or whatever the marital 

home would sell for today, rather than his portion of $290,000.

1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

{¶ 23} A domestic relations court has broad discretion in determining the equitable 

division of property in a divorce proceeding. Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981), 

paragraph two of the syllabus. "Prior to making an equitable division of marital property, a 

trial court must determine the value of marital assets." Dollries v. Dollries, 12th Dist. Butler 

Nos. CA2012-08-167 and CA2012-11-234, 2014-Ohio-1883, ¶ 10. "When valuing a marital 

asset, a trial court is neither required to use a particular valuation method nor precluded 

from using any method." Gregory v. Kottman-Gregory, 12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2004-

11-039 and CA2004-11-041, 2005-Ohio-6558, ¶ 15. Accord Foppe v. Foppe, 12th Dist. 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 9 -

Warren Nos. CA2008-10-128 and CA2009-02-022, 2009-Ohio-6926, ¶ 34. However, in 

determining the value of marital property, the trial court must have evidence before it to 

support the figure that it establishes. Foppe at ¶ 35. 

{¶ 24} "An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's decision regarding what 

figures it uses to determine an equitable division where the decision is supported by the 

manifest weight of the evidence * * *." Dollries at ¶ 10. Accord Corwin v. Corwin, 12th Dist. 

Warren Nos. CA2013-01-005 and CA2013-02-012, 2013-Ohio-3996, ¶ 40. The manifest 

weight of the evidence "concerns 'the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, 

offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other. * * *'" Eastley v. 

Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio 

St.3d 380, 387 (1997). "In a manifest weight analysis, the reviewing court weighs the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and 

determines whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its 

way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be 

reversed." Cooper v. Cooper, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-02-017, 2013-Ohio-4433, ¶ 

14, citing Eastley at ¶ 20. A reviewing court should be guided by the presumption in favor 

of the finder of fact, as the "trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their 

demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, and use those observations in weighing the 

credibility of the testimony." Zollar v. Zollar, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008-03-065, 2009-

Ohio-1008, ¶ 10. Accord Eastley at ¶ 21.

2. Analysis of Marital Home Valuation

{¶ 25} In its Decision, the domestic relations court summarized the valuation 

evidence as follows:

The parties own real estate located at 7815 Elk Creek Road 

located in Madison Township, Ohio. The home is subject to an 

outstanding mortgage with Union Savings Bank (USB) in the 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 10 -

amount of $224,712.02. (Exhibit 5) The parties purchased the 

lot in January 2017 and built the home together during the 

marriage. (Exhibit 8) The construction loan transitioned to a 

traditional mortgage June 2020 and since July 2020, Wife has 

paid all mortgage installments. 

Two appraisal reports were offered concerning the fair market 

value of the 7815 Elk Creek Road property. The first appraisal 

was presented by [Wife's appraiser] David McFarland, home 

appraiser and sole proprietor of Macson Appraisal Service, Mr. 

McFarland used the sales comparison approach method of 

appraising the parties' residential single family home. Mr. 

McFarland first inspected the interior of the home and then 

conducted a radius MLS (multiple listing system) search for 

comparably styled homes in the general area. Mr. McFarland 

felt strongly that a similar home with no basement was a critical 

aspect to the appraisal report. He also noted that the water 

source was well water. He opined that well water is known to 

impact plumbing fixtures and lines that may leave staining on 

the plumbing fixtures and is overall a less desirable water 

source for buyers. Mr. McFarland used three comparable sales 

in his Residential Appraisal Report. He presented his report and 

opined the appraisal appraised fair market value of the parties'

marital residence was equal to $252,500. (Exhibit R) 

The second appraisal was prepared by [Husband's appraiser] 

Kathryn Wuest of Wuest & Associates. A supervisory appraiser, 

David Wuest, signed the appraisal report. This report also used 

the comparable approach method of appraising the parties'

marital home. As a part of the appraisal process, three 

comparable sales in the area were identified. According to the 

report of Ms. Wuest the appraised fair market value of the 

parties' marital residence was equal to $290,000. (Exhibit 6) It 

is noted that the rural nature of the area required comparables 

with a similar acreage and it was necessary to search outside a 

one mile radius of the parties' home.

Mr. McFarland was unaware that the parties moved into the 

marital home in January 2020. In fact, Husband never lived in 

the home. The parties lived in a trailer on the lot during 

construction. Wife moved into the home in January 2020 and 

has remained in the home since. Mr. McFarland considered the 

condition of the home and believed it revealed excessive 

depreciation. The home was cluttered and visible hard water 

stains were present. He categorized the home as a "C3". On a 

scale of six criterion (Cl, C2, C3, C4, C5 & C6) with C6 being 

the poorest condition, Mr. McFarland ranked the parties' home 

in the middle of the benchmark ranking. Wife requests an 

opportunity to refinance and retain the home. (Exhibit T)
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 11 -

Zachary Ferrell, Real Estate Agent with Keller Williams Realty, 

is a Realtor in Middletown and recently earned recognition as 

the 'number one agent' in the area. Mr. Ferrell contends he is 

familiar with the area where the marital home is located. He 

acknowledged it to be located in a rural area in 'high demand'. 

Mr. Ferrell asserts he is familiar with the land and the area and 

knows the marital home to be a new build located on five acres. 

Mr. Ferrell is not qualified to provide an appraised value but 

states that in giving a general listing price range he does not 

need to enter the home for inspection. He has discussed the

home with [Husband] and is prepared to propose a listing price 

for the home between $400,000 and $430,000. Mr. Ferrell would 

be willing to serve as real estate agent, if requested. Mr. Ferrell 

was unaware of any construction issues with the home but 

agrees serious construction issues could negatively affect its 

value. Mr. Ferrell indicated that the housing market is very 

generous at this time and a fair market value is the price 

negotiated between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

The court went on to state that it had reviewed and considered the appraisal reports and 

had decided to adopt the valuation of Husband's appraiser, Wuest. The court observed 

that it found Wuest's comparable properties more persuasive and that Wuest's valuation 

was bolstered by Ferrell's testimony. Accordingly, the court valued the marital home at 

$290,000.

{¶ 26} We have reviewed the appraisal reports and the relevant testimony. Based 

upon our review, we find that the domestic relations court had competent and credible 

evidence before it which supported its determination as to the valuation of the marital home. 

The court's decision discussed those aspects of Wuest's appraisal that it found persuasive. 

There is nothing in the record that would suggest that the court abused its discretion in 

relying on Wuest's appraisal. Moreover, we find it inconsistent, to say the least, that 

Husband would argue that the court abused its discretion by relying on Wuest's appraisal 

when it was Husband, himself, who retained Wuest and submitted Wuest's report into 

evidence. 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 12 -

{¶ 27} Husband contends that the domestic relations court lost its way by failing to 

consider the testimony of realtor Ferrell, that the real estate market had improved since the 

date of Wuest's evaluation, noting that both Wuest and McFarland's appraisals used 

comparable sales that occurred in 2019 and 2020. However, the domestic relations court 

did not ignore Ferrell's testimony and, as described above, clearly referenced Ferrell's 

testimony in summarizing the evidence and even credited Ferrell's testimony as bolstering 

the court's decision to rely on Wuest's higher valuation, rather than McFarland's lower 

valuation. Moreover, we note that Ferrell only testified as to a list price of the real estate, 

not to its valuation. The court expressly found that Ferrell's testimony would be limited to 

his opinion as to a list price and that he was not qualified to render an appraisal opinion, 

and Husband did not appeal this ruling.

{¶ 28} While McFarland was given access to the marital home in order to make his 

assessment, Wuest and Ferrell were never granted access to the interior of the home and 

so they were unable to assess the then-present condition of the home's interior. Wuest 

relied on a drive-by, exterior-only view of the home and review of interior photographs taken 

before Wife had occupancy of the home. Ferrell also relied on photographs. 

{¶ 29} After seeing the interior of the home, McFarland described the home, though 

new, as having been poorly cared for by Wife. McFarland stated that the home had been 

"rode hard and put away wet," and stated that it had experienced "excessive depreciation"

in a short period of occupancy based on clutter, already-stained bathroom fixtures, and a 

general lack of appropriate upkeep. This testimony provided further reason for the trial court 

to reject Ferrell's list price estimate of $400,000 to $430,000. While Wuest also did not view 

the interior of the home, Wuest's appraisal of $290,000 was much closer to McFarland's 

$252,500 appraisal than Ferrell's much higher proposed list price.
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 13 -

{¶ 30} For these reasons, we find that the record contains competent and credible 

evidence supporting the domestic relation court's valuation of the marital home at $290,000 

and that the court's valuation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We 

therefore overrule Husband's first assignment of error.

B. Temporary Spousal Support and Consumer Marital Debt

{¶ 31} Husband's Assignment of Error No. 2 states:

{¶ 32} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ITS DIVISION 

OF THE MARITAL DEBT BY FAILING TO CREDIT HUSBAND FOR HIS $1,500 MONTHLY 

PAYMENT.

{¶ 33} Before discussing the specifics of Husband's second assignment of error, we 

remind the reader that the Magistrate's Decision ordered Husband to make monthly $1,500 

"temporary spousal support" payments to Wife for a period of time while the divorce 

proceedings were pending. The Magistrate's Decision stated that "[t]he $1,500.00 amount 

includes the debts [Husband] was to pay as stated in [Wife's] financial affidavit"—that is, 

Husband's portion of the parties' consumer marital debt—"as well as a partial payment 

towards the [mortgage]." In other words, Wife was to use the $1,500 monthly payments to 

pay towards the minimum monthly payments on Husband's consumer marital debts and to 

pay "a partial payment" towards the mortgage. But while the Magistrate's Decision 

attributed $33,909.76 of consumer marital debt to Wife and $30,081.52 of consumer marital 

debt to Husband, the Magistrate's Decision did not indicate how—in terms of specific dollar 

values—Wife should divide Husband's monthly $1,500 temporary spousal support 

payments between her payments towards Husband's consumer marital debt and the 

mortgage. The Magistrate's Decision left to Wife the decision of how to divide up (or not 

divide) the temporary spousal support payments, how to apply those payments to 

Husband's consumer marital debt and the mortgage, and even whether Wife could devote 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 14 -

some portion of the temporary spousal support to Wife's consumer marital debt or Wife's 

own support.

{¶ 34} Later, in the Divorce Decree, the domestic relations court again divided the 

parties' consumer marital debt between Husband and Wife. By that time, Wife's consumer 

marital debts totaled $26,746.52 (down from the $33,909.76 at the time of the Magistrate's 

Decision) and Husband's consumer marital debts totaled $28,652.51 (down from the 

$30,081.52 at the time of the Magistrate's Decision). The Divorce Decree did not give 

Husband any credit for the temporary spousal support payments he had made to Wife 

during the divorce proceedings. 

{¶ 35} In his second assignment of error, Husband contends the domestic relations 

court erred in its division of consumer marital debt between Wife and Husband because the 

court failed to credit Husband with the full amount of the "temporary spousal support"

payments he was ordered to pay to Wife during the divorce proceedings. He contends that 

because Wife presumably used some unspecified portion of his monthly $1,500 temporary 

spousal support payments to make payments on the parties' consumer marital debt, the 

domestic relations court erred by failing to credit him for his full monthly $1,500 payments 

when the court divided the remaining consumer marital debt between Husband and Wife.

{¶ 36} The allocation and division of marital property is governed by R.C. 3105.171. 

While marital property division is specifically addressed by R.C. 3105.171, the division of 

marital debt is not. See Smith v. Smith, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2001-10-251, 2002-Ohio4232, ¶ 7. With respect to the division of marital property, R.C. 3105.171(C)(1) provides for 

an equal division of marital property unless the trial court finds an equal division to be 

inequitable.

{¶ 37} This court has treated marital debt in the same manner that marital property 

is treated under R.C. 3105.171(C) and has stated that "the starting point for allocating 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 15 -

marital property is an equal division of both marital assets and marital debts." Vaughn v. 

Vaughn, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2007-02-021, 2007-Ohio-6569, ¶ 40. "If equal division 

of marital assets or marital debts would produce an inequitable result, however, then the 

marital assets or marital debts should be divided equitably rather than equally." Id. We 

review a trial court's allocation of marital debt for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 41. An 

abuse of discretion implies that the domestic relations court's decision was unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Sparks v. Sparks, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-10-095, 

2016-Ohio-2896, ¶ 7, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

{¶ 38} Upon review, we conclude that Husband has not met his burden of 

demonstrating that the domestic relations court abused its discretion. Husband's argument 

is based on assumptions regarding facts not in the record. Specifically, Husband did not 

introduce evidence into the record establishing how, exactly, Wife used or applied

Husband's $1,500 monthly temporary spousal support payments. Husband suggests that 

he does not know how Wife used or applied these payments. For example, Husband states, 

"If Wife applied the $15,000 to the marital debt, even without paying a dime of her own 

money, it stands to reason the marital debt for which she was responsible would be reduced 

to $18,909.76..." (Emphasis added.) He then concludes that because the trial court in the 

Decree allocated a higher amount to Wife, $26,746.52, Wife must not have devoted all of 

his temporary spousal support payments to marital debt. But Husband also admits that he 

did not actually pay all of the temporary spousal support payments to Wife that he was

ordered to pay, and that he was still obligated to make back payments. Simply put, the 

record leaves Husband—and this court—with numerous questions about how Wife used 

Husband's temporary spousal support payments. But Husband did not introduce evidence 

in the proceedings below that would have related to the argument he now makes. Nor did 

he argue for additional fact-finding in this appeal.
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 16 -

{¶ 39} We agree with Husband that, if some or all of Husband's temporary spousal 

support payments were applied to the consumer marital debt by Wife, Husband may have 

been owed a credit when the consumer marital debt was divided by the domestic relations 

court. However, based on the record before us, we cannot conclude—and Husband has 

not shown—that Wife made such payments, or that he is owed a credit, much less that the 

domestic relations court made a reversible error. For these reasons, we overrule Husband's 

second assignment of error.

C. Wife's Credit for Mortgage Payments

{¶ 40} Husband's Assignment of Error No. 3 states:

{¶ 41} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY PROVIDING 

WIFE A CREDIT FOR PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE MORTGAGE WHILE SHE 

ENJOYED SOLE USE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE.

{¶ 42} In his third assignment of error, Husband alleges that the court erred by giving 

Wife a "credit" for mortgage payments she made while living in the marital home from July 

2020 to the date of the closing on Wife's anticipated refinancing of the mortgage. Husband 

argues that because Wife lived in the residence, and he did not, she was not entitled to 

"credit" for mortgage payments. 

{¶ 43} Husband primarily bases this argument on Wu v. Li, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2012-04-091, 2013-Ohio-527, which he characterizes as holding that a spouse who 

resides in a marital home during the pendency of a divorce should not be credited with 

mortgage payments made by that spouse. But Husband overstates the holding of Wu. In 

that case, the wife – who had exclusive use of the residence – paid for the mortgage with 

her own funds. Id. at ¶ 12, 13. She did this after her husband had moved out and after he 

told her he could no longer pay the mortgage. Id. at ¶ 12. The wife thereafter unilaterally 

paid the mortgage from her own bank account. Id. The domestic relations court only 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 17 -

credited the wife for the portion of her mortgage payments that was devoted to paying down 

principal, and did not credit her for the remainder of her mortgage payments. Id. at 4-5. 

{¶ 44} The wife appealed, arguing the trial court should have credited her for the full 

amount of the mortgage payments she made, not simply the portion devoted to principal. 

Id. at ¶ 11. We held that the domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion by only 

crediting the wife for the portion of the mortgage payments devoted to principal. Id. 

{¶ 45} Therefore, Wu did not hold, as Husband incorrectly contends, that a spouse 

who resides in a marital home during the pendency of a divorce should not – as a rule – be 

credited with mortgage payments made by that spouse. Wu was more limited, merely 

finding no abuse of discretion in the circumstances of that case, where it was the resident 

wife who paid the mortgage (not the non-resident, non-mortgage-paying husband), who 

appealed, and where the wife was credited with only the principal portion of the mortgage 

payments, and was not credited with the mortgage payments in full. Wu is distinguishable 

from this case.

{¶ 46} Husband also cites four cases we cited in Wu, all but one decided by other 

districts. All those cases held that domestic relations courts did not abuse their discretion 

when they failed to credit a spouse who lived in a marital home for the mortgage payments 

that spouse made after the other spouse moved out of the marital home. Novello v. Novello, 

7th Dist. Noble No. 10 NO 378, 2011-Ohio-2973, ¶ 19; Patridge v. Matthews, 12th Dist. 

Brown No. CA2000-04-007, 2001 WL 171011, *4 (Feb. 20, 2001); Galloway v. Khan, 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-140, 2006-Ohio-6637, ¶ 23-25; Stacy v. Stacy, 11th Dist. Ashtabula 

No. 2004-A-0076, 2005-Ohio-5289, ¶ 35-36. But these cases, like Wu, only reviewed the 

domestic relations courts' decisions for possible abuses of discretion, and did not establish 

a bright-line rule. Husband has not cited any case or statute establishing that a domestic 

relations court must not credit a spouse for mortgage payments made during the pendency 
Butler CA2022-01-002

- 18 -

of the divorce. Nor has Husband offered any analysis of the facts that would suggest the 

domestic relations court abused its discretion, other than noting his perception that it was 

unfair to credit wife for mortgage payments when Husband had to pay for his own rent.

{¶ 47} It was Husband's burden to point to controlling legal authority or facts in the 

record establishing that the domestic relations court erred when it gave Wife a "credit" for 

mortgage payments she made while living in the marital home from July 2020 to the date 

of the closing on Wife's anticipated refinancing of the mortgage. Upon our review of 

Husband's arguments and the record, we find that Husband has not met this burden, and 

we do not find that the domestic relations court abused its discretion. 

{¶ 48} For these reasons, we overrule Husband's third assignment of error. 

III. Conclusion

{¶ 49} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule all of Husband's assignments of error.

{¶ 50} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER, P.J., and S. POWELL, J. concur.