[Cite as Fogt v. Fogt, 2019-Ohio-1403.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DEFIANCE COUNTY 

 

SARA FOGT, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 4-18-10 

 v. 

JEFFREY C. FOGT, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. 

 

Appeal from Defiance County Common Pleas Court 

Domestic Relations Division 

Trial Court No. 13-DR-42551 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: April 15, 2019 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Charles E. Bloom for Appellant 

 John S. Shaffer for Appellee 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-2- 

PRESTON, J. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Sara Fogt (“Sara”), appeals the October 26, 2018 

judgment of the Defiance County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations 

Division. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} Sara and defendant-appellee, Jeffrey Fogt (“Jeffrey”), were married on 

October 31, 1998. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 32). Nearly 15 years later, on September 12, 

2013, Sara filed a complaint in the trial court requesting a divorce from Jeffrey. 

(Doc. No. 1). Jeffrey filed his answer to Sara’s complaint on January 29, 2016. 

(Doc. No. 32). 

{¶3} The final hearing in the matter commenced before the magistrate on 

January 8, 2016. (See Doc. Nos. 43, 44). Additional hearings were conducted 

before the magistrate on February 19, April 29, July 8, and September 23, 2016. 

(See Doc. Nos. 43, 44). On November 23, 2016, Sara filed written closing 

arguments. (Doc. No. 43). That same day, Jeffrey filed proposed findings of fact 

and conclusions of law. (Doc. No. 44). On December 9, 2016, Sara filed her 

response to Jeffrey’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Doc. No. 

45). That same day, Jeffrey filed his response to Sara’s written closing arguments. 

(Doc. No. 46). 

{¶4} On April 10, 2017, the magistrate issued his decision recommending 

that a divorce be granted. (Doc. No. 54). Relevant to this appeal, the magistrate 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-3- 

also recommended that the trial court make the following orders with respect to 

contested assets and debts: that a bank account, First Federal #8283, valued at 

$80,531 be divided equally between Sara and Jeffrey and that Jeffrey assume sole 

responsibility for the payment of interest and principal on a $90,000 loan the parties 

received from Jeffrey’s parents in July 2000. (Id.). In addition, the magistrate 

recommended that the trial court order Jeffrey to pay Sara spousal support in the 

sum of $4,400 per month for 66 months. (Id.). 

{¶5} On April 24, 2017, Jeffrey filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. 

(Doc. No. 55). First, Jeffrey objected to the magistrate’s recommended division of 

First Federal #8283. (Id.). He argued that the value of First Federal #8283 should 

be reduced by $16,249.73 prior to division to account for two payments he made 

from the account in January 2016: $12,000 toward estimated 2015 federal income 

tax liability and $4,249.73 toward real estate taxes for calendar year 2015 payable 

in calendar year 2016. (Id.). In addition, Jeffrey argued that although the magistrate 

found that the $90,000 loan was essentially a marital debt, the magistrate failed to 

assign responsibility for the debt equally between himself and Sara. (Id.). Thus, 

Jeffrey argued that he should receive credit against other marital assets for one-half 

of the $90,000 obligation. (Id.). Finally, Jeffrey argued that both the amount of 

spousal support owed per month to Sara and the length of the term of spousal 

support should be reduced because the magistrate incorrectly determined the 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-4- 

duration of the marriage and because the magistrate should have given him credit 

for the three and a half years that he supported Sara from the date of the filing of 

her complaint for divorce until the date of the magistrate’s decision. (Id.). On May 

3, 2017, Sara filed her response to Jeffrey’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. 

(Doc. No. 56). 

{¶6} On May 22, 2017, Jeffrey requested that the trial court grant him an 

additional 30 days to obtain and file copies of the transcripts of the hearings held 

before the magistrate. (Doc. No. 58). On June 14, 2017, the trial court granted 

Jeffrey’s motion and gave him until June 24, 2017 to file the transcripts. (Doc. No. 

59). On June 22, 2017, Jeffrey requested that the trial court grant him an additional 

extension of 30 days to file the transcripts. (Doc. No. 60). On June 26, 2017, the 

trial court granted Jeffrey’s motion and gave him an additional 30 days until July 

24, 2017 to file the transcripts. (Doc. No. 61). However, inexplicably, Jeffrey failed 

to file any transcripts in the trial court. 

{¶7} On July 25, 2017, Sara filed a motion to dismiss Jeffrey’s objections 

based on Jeffrey’s failure to support his objections with transcripts of the hearings 

conducted before the magistrate. (Doc. No. 62). On August 9, 2017, the trial court 

denied Sara’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 63). 

{¶8} On May 9, 2018, the trial court sustained Jeffrey’s objections to the 

magistrate’s decision. (Doc. No. 65). First, the trial court ordered that the balance 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-5- 

of First Federal #8283, “$80,531.00[,] should be reduced by the sum of $16,249.73 

prior to division” between Sara and Jeffrey. (Id.). In addition, with respect to the 

$90,000 loan, the trial court concluded that Jeffrey “must be credited with one-half 

of the amount of the mar[ital] debt in the overall asset division.” (Id.). Finally, 

although the trial court did not alter the amount of spousal support owed per month 

by Jeffrey to Sara, it reduced the term of spousal support from 66 months to 54 

months. (Id.). 

{¶9} On October 26, 2018, the trial court filed its final judgment entry of 

divorce, which, among other things, granted Sara and Jeffrey a divorce from each 

other and incorporated the modifications the trial court made to the magistrate’s 

decision in the trial court’s May 9, 2018 judgment. (Doc. No. 67). 

{¶10} On November 19, 2018, Sara filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 68). 

She raises four assignments of error for our review. We will begin by addressing 

Sara’s first assignment of error, followed by Sara’s second, third, and fourth 

assignments of error, which we will address together. 

Assignment of Error No. I

The trial court erred in failing to dismiss Appellee’s objections 

when the appellee failed to file a transcript of the proceedings to 

support his objections. 

{¶11} In her first assignment of error, Sara argues that the trial court erred 

by denying her motion to dismiss Jeffrey’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-6- 

Specifically, Sara argues that the trial court could not have considered Jeffrey’s 

objections without transcripts of the hearings conducted before the magistrate. 

(Appellant’s Brief at 11-12). Therefore, Sara argues, the trial court should have 

dismissed Jeffrey’s objections without further consideration. 

{¶12} “Civ.R. 53(D) governs proceedings in matters referred to magistrates.” 

Williams v. Ormsby, 9th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0080-M, 2010-Ohio-3666, ¶ 9. 

Civ.R. 53(D) provides in relevant part: 

An objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically 

designated as a finding of fact under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be 

supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the 

magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a 

transcript is not available. * * * The objecting party shall file the 

transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing 

objections unless the court extends the time in writing for preparation 

of the transcript or other good cause. If a party files timely objections 

prior to the date on which a transcript is prepared, the party may seek 

leave of court to supplement the objections. 

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). “The duty to provide a transcript to the trial court rests with 

the person objecting to the magistrate’s decision.” Slepsky v. Slepsky, 11th Dist. 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-7- 

Lake No. 2016-L-032, 2016-Ohio-8429, ¶ 20, citing In re O’Neal, 11th Dist. 

Ashtabula No. 99-A-0022, 2000 WL 1738366, *7 (Nov. 24, 2000). 

{¶13} “Where a party fails * * * to file a transcript of the evidence presented 

at the magistrate’s hearing, the trial court, when ruling on the objections, is required 

to accept the magistrate’s findings of fact and to review the magistrate’s conclusions 

of law based on the factual findings.” Nieto v. Marcellino, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 

2017-G-0146, 2018-Ohio-4952, ¶ 15, citing Slepsky at ¶ 20, citing State ex rel. 

Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 (1995) and Saipin v. 

Coy, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21800, 2004-Ohio-2670, ¶ 9; Long v. Long, 3d Dist. 

Defiance No. 4-02-22, 2003-Ohio-854, ¶ 10 (“[A]bsent a transcript or appropriate 

affidavit as provided in the rule, a trial court is limited to an examination of the 

magistrate’s conclusions of law and recommendations only in light of the 

accompanying findings of fact, unless the trial court elects to hold further 

hearings.”), citing Wade v. Wade, 113 Ohio App.3d 414, 418 (11th Dist.1996). 

“‘Where the failure to provide the relevant portions of the transcript or suitable 

alternative is clear on the face of the submissions, the trial court cannot then address 

the merits of that factual objection because the objecting party, whether through 

inadvertence or bad faith, has not provided all of the materials needed for the review 

of that objection.’” (Emphasis sic.) Nieto at ¶ 15, quoting Wade at 418. 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-8- 

{¶14} Here, it is undisputed that Jeffrey failed to provide the trial court with 

transcripts of the hearings conducted before the magistrate. As a result, the trial 

court was bound to accept the magistrate’s findings of fact. Nieto at ¶ 15; Long at 

¶ 10. However, while the trial court was required to accept the magistrate’s findings 

of fact, it was nevertheless permitted to consider Jeffrey’s objections to the extent 

that Jeffrey argued that the magistrate erred in his interpretation of the law or in the 

application of the law to the facts as found. Indeed, the trial court had an obligation 

to determine whether the magistrate correctly interpreted and applied the law prior 

to adopting the magistrate’s decision and that obligation would have been the same 

irrespective of whether Jeffrey filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. See 

Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c) (“If no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a 

magistrate’s decision, unless it determines that there is an error of law * * * evident 

on the face of the magistrate’s decision.”); Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) (“In ruling on 

objections, the court shall undertake an independent review as to the objected 

matters to ascertain that the magistrate has * * * appropriately applied the law.”). 

Therefore, because Jeffrey’s objections related to the application of the law to the 

magistrate’s findings of fact and because the trial court had an independent 

responsibility to review the magistrate’s application of the law, the trial court did 

not err by denying Sara’s motion to dismiss Jeffrey’s objections. 

{¶15} Sara’s first assignment of error is overruled. 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-9- 

Assignment of Error No. II 

The trial court’s decision is in error and is not supported by the 

manifest weight of the evidence as found in the complete record 

when contrary to the magistrate’s findings of fact the trial court 

ruled that the value of the Federal bank account #8283 should be 

reduced by the sum of $16,249.73 to account for payments for the 

estimated income and real estate taxes from this account. 

Assignment of Error No. III 

The trial court’s decision is in error and is not supported by the 

manifest weight of the evidence as found in the complete record 

when contrary to the magistrate’s findings of fact the trial court 

ruled that the $90,000 debt is a marital obligation. 

Assignment of Error No. IV 

The trial court’s decision is in error and is not supported by the 

manifest weight of the evidence as found in the complete record 

when contrary to the magistrate’s findings of fact it ruled that the 

appellant’s term of spousal support should be reduced from 66 

months to a period of 54 months. 

{¶16} Each of Sara’s remaining assignments of error take issue with the trial 

court’s modification of certain aspects of the magistrate’s decision. In her second 

assignment of error, Sara argues that by reducing the balance of First Federal #8283 

by $16,249.73 prior to division, the trial court “abused its discretion by ignoring the 

factual findings of the Magistrate, assuming facts not in evidence, utilizing a 

different valuation date for the division of this account, making its own factual 

finding, and rejecting the Magistrate’s Conclusion of Law.” (Appellant’s Brief at 

14). In her third assignment of error, Sara argues that the trial court’s decision to 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-10- 

assess half of the $90,000 loan against her share of the marital property was an abuse 

of discretion because the trial court reached this conclusion by rendering a factual 

finding not made by the magistrate—that the loan is a legitimate marital debt. (Id.

at 16-21). Finally, in her fourth assignment of error, Sara argues that the trial court 

abused its discretion by reducing the term of spousal support from 66 months to 54 

months because, in doing so, the trial court “reject[ed] [the magistrate’s] factual 

findings, and * * * ma[de] other specific findings when the evidence and testimony 

presented to the Magistrate upon which it was based was never provided.” (Id. at 

22); (Id. at 21-25). 

{¶17} Generally, “[a]n appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision to 

adopt, reject or modify the Magistrate’s decision under an abuse of discretion 

standard.” Tewalt v. Peacock, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-10-18, 2011-Ohio-1726, ¶ 

31, citing Figel v. Figel, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-08-14, 2009-Ohio-1659, ¶ 9, 

citing Marchel v. Marchel, 160 Ohio App.3d 240, 2005-Ohio-1499, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). 

However, “‘[o]n appeal of a judgment rendered without the benefit of a transcript 

or affidavit, an appellate court only considers whether the trial court correctly 

applied the law to the facts as set forth in the magistrate’s decision.’” In re Estate 

of Stanford, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23249, 2010-Ohio-569, ¶ 22, quoting In re 

Estate of Lucas, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23088, 2009-Ohio-6392, ¶ 

32, citing Ross v. Cockburn, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-967, 2008-Ohio-3522, ¶ 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-11- 

5-6. Thus, we consider only whether the trial court abused its discretion by 

modifying the magistrate’s conclusions of law in light of the magistrate’s findings 

of fact. An abuse of discretion suggests the trial court’s decision is unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 

(1983). 

{¶18} Sara’s second and third assignments of error concern the trial court’s 

modification of the portions of the magistrate’s decision regarding the division of 

First Federal #8283 and allocation of responsibility for payment of the $90,000 loan. 

Thus, Sara’s second and third assignments of error relate to the division of marital 

assets and liabilities. “In awarding property to the parties to a divorce proceeding, 

the trial court must first determine whether property is marital or separate.” Siferd 

v. Siferd, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-17-04, 2017-Ohio-8624, ¶ 25, citing R.C. 

3105.171(B). Marital property includes all real and personal property that is owned 

by either or both of the spouses and all interest that either or both of the spouses has 

in any real or personal property, and “that was acquired by either or both of the 

spouses during the marriage.” R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(i)-(ii). “Property acquired 

during a marriage is presumed to be marital property unless it can be shown to be 

separate.” Schwarck v. Schwarck, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-11-24, 2012-Ohio-3902, 

¶ 19, citing Huelskamp v. Huelskamp, 185 Ohio App.3d 611, 2009-Ohio-6864, ¶ 13 

(3d Dist.). 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-12- 

{¶19} “‘Although Ohio’s divorce statutes do not specifically articulate debt 

as an element of marital and separate property, the rules concerning marital assets 

are usually applied to marital and separate debt as well.’” Siferd at ¶ 26, quoting 

Schwarck at ¶ 20, citing Vonderhaar-Ketron v. Ketron, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 10 

CA 22, 2010-Ohio-6593, ¶ 34. “‘The property to be divided in a divorce proceeding 

includes not only the assets owned by the parties but also any debts incurred by the 

parties.’” Id., quoting Forman v. Forman, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-13-67, 2014-Ohio3545, ¶ 31, citing Marrero v. Marrero, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 02CA008057, 2002-

Ohio-4862, ¶ 43. Like property acquired during a marriage, debts incurred during 

a marriage are presumptively marital debts unless it can be proved that they are not. 

Schwarck at ¶ 21, citing Vergitz v. Vergitz, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 05JE52, 2007-

Ohio-1395, ¶ 12, citing Knox v. Knox, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 04JE24, 2006-Ohio1154, ¶ 25-26. 

{¶20} Generally, trial courts should divide marital assets and debts equally 

between the spouses. R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). However, where equal division of the 

marital assets and debts would be inequitable, “the trial court must ‘divide the 

marital * * * property equitably between the spouses * * *.’” Siferd at ¶ 25, quoting 

R.C. 3105.171(B). “‘Trial courts have “broad discretion to determine what property 

division is equitable in a divorce proceeding.”’” Id. at ¶ 27, quoting Collins v. 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-13- 

Collins, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-10-53, 2011-Ohio-2339, ¶ 28, quoting Cherry v. 

Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶21} We turn first to the trial court’s modification of the magistrate’s 

decision as to the division of First Federal #8283. In his decision, the magistrate 

made the following observations and findings relevant to the valuation and division 

of First Federal #8283: 

The Court notes that the parties previously agreed to divide up the 

uncontested financial accounts as of January 10, 2016. The balance 

[of First Federal #8283] on that date was about $80,531. * * * [Sara] 

* * * objected to large payments [Jeffrey] made in January 2016 from 

the account for estimated taxes ($12,000) and real estate taxes 

($4,247.76). [Sara] stated that these payments up until then had been 

made out of the company account of Professional Vision Services, 

LLC which by agreement was awarded to [Jeffrey] and that the sole 

purpose of paying them now out of the personal account was to reduce 

the amount of her share. 

The court finds that [First Federal #8283] should be valued as of 

January 10, 2016 at $80,531 and split equaly * * *. The payments 

[Jeffrey] made from [First Federal #8283] in January [2016] were 

atypical and the only reason they were made from [First Federal 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-14- 

#8283] instead of the historical account was to reduce the amount of 

funds paid to [Sara]. 

(Doc. No. 54). Later in his decision, the magistrate noted that the tax payments 

made from First Federal #8283 “were otherwise proper being toward legitimate 

marital debt.” (Id.). 

{¶22} In its judgment sustaining Jeffrey’s objections and modifying the 

magistrate’s decision, the trial court concluded as follows: 

The first issue raised by [Jeffrey’s] objection relates to the division of 

[First Federal #8283]. The Magistrate determined the value of this 

marital asset to be $80,531. [Jeffrey] contends that the value of this 

marital balance ought to have been reduced [because of]: 1) [a] 

$12,000 estimated tax payment to the Internal Revenue Service made 

January 13, 2016 (last quarter estimate for calendar year 2015); [and] 

2) $4,249.73 being a payment for Real Estate taxes for calendar year 

2015, payable in 2016 and made January 13, 2016 * * *. 

[K]nowing that the Court is bound by [the] factual determinations 

made by the Magistrate, the Court must determine whether the facts 

stated by the Magistrate warrant the conclusions reached. It appears 

* * * that, notwithstanding the prior practice of the parties, the 

payments for both estimated income tax and real estate taxes should 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-15- 

properly be subtracted from the balance of [First Federal #8283] prior 

to division. As noted by the Magistrate, these are obviously specific 

marital expenses and the fact that, in earlier years, a different source 

of funding for these payments [was used] does not change their 

character. * * * 

Regarding [First Federal #8283] * * *, based upon the foregoing, the 

value of the account[,] $80,531.00[,] should be reduced by the sum of 

$16,249.73 prior to division. 

(Doc. No. 65). 

{¶23} We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

modifying the magistrate’s decision with respect to the balance of First Federal 

#8283. Contrary to Sara’s assertion, in ordering that the balance of First Federal 

#8283 be reduced prior to division, the trial court did not change any of the 

magistrate’s findings of fact or make any additional findings of fact. The magistrate 

found that First Federal #8283 had a balance of $80,531 in January 2016, and it is 

undisputed that First Federal #8283 is a marital asset. Furthermore, the magistrate 

found that two payments totaling $16,247.76 were made from First Federal #8283 

in January 2016, and the magistrate found that these payments were made in order 

to discharge legitimate marital debts. Except as discussed in the next paragraph, 

these findings remained intact in the trial court’s modification of the magistrate’s 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-16- 

decision. However, unlike the magistrate, the trial court ensured that the property 

division conformed to the general legal rule that marital assets and debts are to be 

divided equally between the spouses. That is, the trial court allocated responsibility 

for the payment of legitimate marital debts equally between Sara and Jeffrey as it is 

generally required to do. The trial court’s modifications were not unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. 

{¶24} However, we do note a discrepancy between the amount found by the 

magistrate to have been paid from First Federal #8283 in January 2016 and the 

amount that the trial court ultimately deducted from the balance of First Federal 

#8283. The magistrate found that two payments were made in January 2016—one 

for $12,000 and one for $4,247.76—totaling $16,247.76. (Doc. No. 54). Yet, the 

trial court ordered that the balance of First Federal #8283 be reduced by $16,249.73 

prior to division. (Doc. No. 65). While the magistrate’s findings support reducing 

the balance of First Federal #8283 by $16,247.76, the magistrate’s decision does not 

support reducing the balance of First Federal #8283 by the amount ordered by the 

trial court. However, to remand for $1.97 is neither judicially economic nor 

financially advantageous to the parties and accordingly, it will be considered 

harmless error. 

{¶25} Next, we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by 

modifying the magistrate’s decision so that half of the $90,000 loan would be 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-17- 

assessed against Sara’s share of the total marital property. With respect to the 

$90,000 loan, the magistrate made the following findings and conclusions: 

[T]he parties on July 20, 2000 borrowed $90,000 from [Jeffrey’s] 

parents and signed a note for that amount. No periodic principle [sic] 

payments were required except a balloon payment on July 20, 2010. 

However, monthly interest payments were required at 8%. [Jeffrey] 

signed his name “dba Professional Vision services.” The purpose of 

the loan was not clearly stated but appeared to be business related. No 

documents were provided showing the receipt of and deposit of the 

money and [Sara] could not recall ever seeing the check or any funds 

deposited in the company account. * * * On July 20, 2010, a new note 

was signed continuing the debt for another ten years. This time the 

interest rate was reduced to 4%. 

* * * 

The evidence indicates that the interest payments required for the debt 

were paid through the books and accounts of Professional Vision 

Services, LLC of which [Jeffrey] was the sole member. The account 

was treated apparently as a payable by the LLC to [Jeffrey]. All 

interest payments required by the notes have been paid by the 

company. * * * [Jeffrey] was able to produce a document * * * which 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-18- 

he states shows a $60,000 payment to State Bank on a loan he took 

out to purchase the practice of Dr. Brunotte. [Jeffrey] indicated that 

the source of the $60,000 payment was the loan from his parents. * * 

* [T]he evidence suggests logically that the money did come from his 

parents and was used for business purposes. Exhibit 7, shows a 

purchase agreement between Dr. Brunotte and [Jeffrey] for the sale of 

Brunotte’s practice in which [Jeffrey] agreed to pay him $160,000 at 

the closing which was scheduled for May 10, 2000. Exhibit U shows 

that [Jeffrey] secured a loan from the State Bank and Trust Co. on 

May 9, 2000 in the amount of $160,000 one day before the closing. 

The payment of $60,000 shown on Exhibit U, was received on July 

26, 2000, six days after the signing of the note and likely receipt of 

the $90,000. Thus, $60,000 of the funds are accounted for and 

business related but not the remaining $30,000. 

[Jeffrey] essentially failed to show where the remaining thirty 

thousand dollars is being held or, if it no longer exists, when and for 

what use was the money put. * * * [I]t is reasonable to find that 

[Jeffrey] and his business are responsible for [the other $30,000] and 

charged with knowledge of [its] existence. * * * 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-19- 

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the debt despite being 

somewhat impractical is legitimate. [Jeffrey] is to be solely 

responsible for the payment of interest and principle [sic] on the debt 

and hold [Sara] harmless. 

(Doc. No. 54). 

{¶26} In modifying the magistrate’s decision as to the allocation of 

responsibility for the $90,000 loan, the trial court concluded: 

In the Magistrate’s Decision, the Magistrate effectively describes [the 

$90,000 loan] as a legitimate marital debt. The Magistrate makes 

payment of that debt and interest the responsibility of [Jeffrey]. 

Notwithstanding this determination that the $90,000 debt is in fact a 

marital obligation, the Magistrate failed to credit [Jeffrey] for 

payment of one-half of this marital debt against other marital assets. 

Again, being bound by the factual determination of the Magistrate, the 

Court determines from the Magistrate’s expression of facts that this 

$90,000 debt is, in fact, properly considered a marital debt. In 

assigning responsibility for payment of this marital debt to [Jeffrey], 

[Jeffrey] must be credited with one-half of the amount of the marital 

debt in the overall asset division. 

(Doc. No. 65). 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-20- 

{¶27} We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

modifying the magistrate’s decision in order to hold Sara responsible for half of the 

$90,000 loan. In order to hold Sara responsible for half of the $90,000 loan, the 

$90,000 loan must be a marital debt. Sara asserts that the magistrate classified the 

$90,000 loan as a “business debt” of Jeffrey’s business rather than as a marital debt 

and thus appropriately concluded that Jeffrey’s business and Jeffrey himself should 

be responsible for the whole loan. (Appellant’s Brief at 19). Sara further contends 

that the trial court altered the magistrate’s findings—that is, the trial court concluded 

that the $90,000 loan is a marital debt instead of preserving the magistrate’s 

conclusion that the loan is a business debt. (See id.). Thus, Sara argues, the trial 

court abused its discretion by “reclassifying” the $90,000 loan as a marital debt in 

order to hold her responsible for half of the obligation without the benefit of the 

transcripts of the hearings. 

{¶28} Sara’s argument is without merit. Contrary to Sara’s argument, in 

concluding that the $90,000 loan is a marital obligation and assigning to Sara and 

Jeffrey equal responsibility for its payment, the trial court did not disturb the 

magistrate’s findings of fact. Instead, to the extent that the magistrate concluded 

that the $90,000 loan is solely a debt of Jeffrey’s business, the trial court determined 

that the magistrate’s findings of fact did not support that conclusion. Thus, the trial 

court merely reached a different legal conclusion based on the facts as found by the 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-21- 

magistrate and that conclusion is supported by the magistrate’s findings of fact. 

First, the note evidencing the $90,000 loan was signed on July 20, 2000, which was 

during the course of the parties’ marriage. (Doc. No. 54). Although Jeffrey signed 

the note “dba Professional Vision Services,” Jeffrey was not the only signatory on 

the note; Sara also signed the note. (See id.). Moreover, the magistrate found that 

$60,000 of the $90,000 loan was spent in connection with the acquisition of another 

doctor’s practice. (Id.). As at least two-thirds of the proceeds of the loan were used 

to expand Jeffrey’s business, which was the principal source of income during the 

marriage, Sara and Jeffrey derived joint personal benefits from the proceeds of the 

loan. Furthermore, the fact that the interest payments for the loan were paid through 

Professional Vision Services’s accounts does not demand a conclusion that the debt 

is strictly an obligation of Jeffrey’s business. In relation to the division of First 

Federal #8283, the magistrate noted that the parties had an established practice of 

paying personal income and real estate taxes out of the business’s accounts. (See 

id.). Thus, because Sara and Jeffrey had a practice of paying marital expenses out 

of business accounts, the payment of interest payments from business accounts is 

not determinative of whether the loan is solely a business obligation. 

{¶29} In sum, the magistrate found that Sara co-signed a loan during the 

course of her marriage to Jeffrey and that the bulk of the proceeds of the loan were 

put toward the expansion and development of Jeffrey’s business—the principal 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-22- 

source of income during the couple’s marriage. “Marital debt has been defined as 

any debt incurred during the marriage for the joint benefit of the parties or for a 

valid marital purpose.” Schwarck, 2012-Ohio-3902, at ¶ 21, citing Ketchum v. 

Ketchum, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 2001 CO 60, 2003-Ohio-2559, ¶ 47, citing 

Turner, Equitable Division of Property, Section 6.29, at 455 (2d Ed. Rev. 2002). 

Because the $90,000 loan was incurred during the marriage for the joint benefit of 

the parties, the trial court properly considered the $90,000 obligation a marital debt. 

As discussed above, marital debts should generally be divided equally between the 

spouses. Thus, the trial court’s decision to modify the magistrate’s recommendation 

in order to effect an equal division of responsibility for the $90,000 loan was in 

accordance with the law and not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. 

{¶30} Finally, in her fourth assignment of error, Sara argues that the trial 

court erred by deciding to reduce the length of the term of spousal support owed by 

Jeffrey from 66 months to 54 months. “‘Pursuant to R.C. 3105.18, a reasonable 

amount of spousal support should be awarded when appropriate.’” Siferd, 2017-

Ohio-8624, at ¶ 39, quoting Jordan v. Jordan, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-03-07, 2003-

Ohio-7116, ¶ 14. “R.C. 3105.18 ‘directs a trial court to use the factors to determine 

whether spousal support is “appropriate and reasonable,” not whether it is 

“necessary.”’” Id., quoting Muckensturm v. Muckensturm, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-
Case No. 4-18-10 

-23- 

11-38, 2012-Ohio-3062, ¶ 20, citing Chaudhry v. Chaudhry, 9th Dist. Summit No. 

15252, 1992 WL 74204, *3 (Apr. 8, 1992). The fourteen factors under R.C. 

3105.18(C) include: 

(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not 

limited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or 

distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; 

(b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; 

(c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of 

the parties; 

(d) The retirement benefits of the parties; 

(e) The duration of the marriage; 

(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, 

because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, 

to seek employment outside the home; 

(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the 

marriage; 

(h) The relative extent of education of the parties; 

(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not 

limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties; 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-24- 

(j) The contribution of each party to the education, training, or 

earning ability of the other party, including, but not limited to, any 

party’s contribution to the acquisition of a professional degree of the 

other party; 

(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking 

spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so 

that the spouse will be qualified to obtain appropriate employment, 

provided the education, training, or job experience, and employment 

is, in fact, sought; 

(l) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal 

support; 

(m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted 

from that party’s marital responsibilities; 

(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and 

equitable. 

R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a)-(n). “‘[O]nce the factors of R.C. 3105.18 have been 

considered, the amount of spousal support is within the sound discretion of the trial 

court.’” Siferd at ¶ 39, quoting Jordan at ¶ 14, citing Young v. Young, 9th Dist. 

Lorain No. 93CA005554, 1993 WL 548765 (Dec. 29, 1993). 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-25- 

{¶31} In the portion of his decision dealing with spousal support, the 

magistrate conducted an exhaustive analysis of the relevant R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) 

factors. (See Doc. No. 54). Neither Sara nor Jeffrey took issue with the majority of 

the magistrate’s R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) findings. Instead, Jeffrey’s objections focused 

only on the magistrate’s findings concerning the duration of the parties’ marriage 

and the effect that an informal support arrangement entered into between Sara and 

Jeffrey during the pendency of their divorce should have on the length of the term 

of spousal support. The magistrate found, in relevant part, as follows: 

The Court may issue a spousal support order if it is appropriate and 

reasonable. In determining whether to do so, the court considers all 

relevant factors including those listed in 3105.18 of the Ohio Revised 

Code. The Court notes first that the parties were married on 

10/30/1998, and the marriage lasted nearly 15 years up to the date of 

the complaint and 17 years to the start of the final hearing. * * * The 

court also notes that during the proceedings the parties entered into an 

informal support agreement which will be taken into consideration for 

spousal support. 

* * * 

[Jeffrey] testified that the credit card listed at $6,000 per month * * * 

which he included in his budget in Exhibit 92 was used for 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-26- 

miscellaneous expenses and to provide temporary spousal support to 

[Sara] without a formal Court order per the parties[’] agreement. In 

Exhibit R [Jeffrey] lists the monthly support payments he has made to 

[Sara] per the informal agreement to provide her with temporary 

support in lieu of an actual * * * spousal support order. * * * This 

arrangement went on while [Sara] lived in the marital home and after 

she moved out. * * * Thus, it appears that the $6,000 per month credit 

card payment listed on [Jeffrey’s] budget is representative of this 

informal agreement and not a regular family expense. 

* * * 

[T]he court has taken into consideration all of the statutory factors, 

testimony, comments in the briefs, fact statements in this decision, the 

need for and ability to pay support, the likely child support amount, 

and all other relevant factors. Upon due consideration, the Court finds 

that a reasonable and appropriate order of spousal support should be 

$4,400 per month modifiable for a period of sixty six months * * *. 

(Doc. No. 54). 

{¶32} With respect to the length of the parties’ marriage and the term of 

spousal support, the trial court concluded as follows: 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-27- 

[Jeffrey’s] final objections relate to determination of [his] income for 

purposes of child and spousal support, and the duration of spousal 

support to be paid. 

Relating to the Magistrate’s determination of income, again, absent a 

transcript and being required to rely on the Magistrate’s factual 

determinations, the Court finds that the Magistrate’s determination of 

income is appropriate. While * * * from evidence referred to by the 

Magistrate, it would have been possible to draw up different factual 

conclusions, the Court under the circumstances is satisfied that[,] 

based on the facts determined by the Magistrate, the determination of 

[Jeffrey’s] income is proper. 

Addressing the duration of spousal support, the Court determines that, 

in the absence of a transcript, the Magistrate’s finding related to 

duration of the marriage will not be disturbed. The principle 

legitimate issue raised by [Jeffrey’s] objection is the period of time, if 

any, during the pendency of the divorce for which [Jeffrey] should be 

credited against the spousal support term. It is clear, and 

acknowledged by the Magistrate, that an effectively informal spousal 

support arrangement existed throughout the pendency of the divorce. 

* * * [I]t appears to the Court that the amount of spousal support, and 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-28- 

the provisions relating to modification of the spousal support upon 

majority of a child are proper and will not be disturbed. Nevertheless, 

the sixty-six (66) month term for payment established by the 

Magistrate is not appropriate. Spousal support has effectively been 

paid during the pendency. The Court’s determination, therefore, 

based upon the facts found by the Magistrate, is that the appropriate 

term of spousal support in the amount found by the Magistrate is fiftyfour (54) months rather than sixty-six (66) * * *. 

(Doc. No. 65). 

{¶33} We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

modifying the magistrate’s decision in order to reduce the length of the term of 

spousal support from 66 months to 54 months. From the magistrate’s decision and 

the trial court’s discussion of that decision, it is clear that the magistrate and the trial 

court thoroughly considered the R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) factors. Thus, the length of the 

term of spousal support owed to Sara was within the trial court’s sound discretion. 

{¶34} In its decision modifying the magistrate’s spousal support 

recommendation, it is clear that the trial court did not change any of the magistrate’s 

findings of fact or make additional findings of fact. Instead, the trial court used the 

magistrate’s findings of fact without any modifications and simply reached a 

different conclusion about the appropriate length of spousal support from those 
Case No. 4-18-10 

-29- 

findings. Specifically, the trial court acknowledged the magistrate’s findings as to 

the informal spousal support arrangement entered into by Sara and Jeffrey but, in 

settling on the appropriate length of the term of spousal support, it gave greater 

weight to this informal arrangement than the magistrate did. We cannot say that the 

trial court modified the magistrate’s decision in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or 

unconscionable manner. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. 

{¶35} Therefore, Sara’s second, third, and fourth assignments of error are 

overruled. 

{¶36} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Judgment Affirmed 

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and SHAW, J., concur. 

/jlr