[Cite as Robinson v. Robinson, 2012-Ohio-5414.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97933 

LEATHEA E. ROBINSON 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 

vs. 

PAUL ALLEN ROBINSON

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Domestic Relations Division 

Case No. D-327571 

 BEFORE: Blackmon, A.J., Stewart, J., and, Keough, J. 

 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 21, 2012 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Robert J. Sawyer 

300 The Superior Building 

815 Superior Avenue 

Cleveland, OH 44114-2746 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

Timothy P. Haffey 

Bernard & Haffey Co., L.P.A. 

5001 Mayfield Road 

Suite 301 

Lyndhurst, OH 44124

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.: 
{¶1} Appellant Leathea E. Robinson (“wife”) appeals the divorce decree issued 

by the domestic relations court and assigns the following three errors for our review: 

I. The trial court erred as a matter of law to the prejudice of appellant 

in ignoring its duty as a court of equity as it relates to division of 

marital and non-marital property. 

II. The trial court erred as a matter of law to the prejudice of 

appellant [by] failing proper application of R.C. 3105.18 and R.C. 

3105.171 as it relates to spousal support. 

III. The trial court abused its discretion and committed error of law 

in denying appellant interim attorney fees and consideration of fees at 

conclusion of trial.

{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s 

decision. The apposite facts follow. 

Facts

{¶3} The parties were married on June 3, 1989, and they had three children, two 

of whom were minors at the time of trial. The wife filed for divorce on August 11, 2009. 

{¶4} The wife earned a B.A. prior to becoming married. She has worked over 

20 years at various law firms. She currently is the docket manager for a firm where she 

earns approximately $54,000 a year. The husband took classes at Tri-C and is certified 

to work with computers. He is a database administrator for a bank where he earns 

$89,000 per year. 

{¶5} When the parties first married, they resided in an apartment. Shortly, 

thereafter, they moved to a home on Lakeview Road in Cleveland, Ohio. Four years 
prior to the marriage, appellee Paul Allen Robinson (“husband”) purchased the home 

from HUD for $16,000. It is a 17-room home and was in need of substantial repairs. 

Although he purchased the home for $16,000, he refinanced the home so that he could 

obtain a loan for repairs and currently owes $82,306 on the mortgage. Both parties admit 

that he has been solely responsible for paying the mortgage on the home and performing 

the repairs. Both parties agreed that the home is still in need of repairs. The wife 

admitted that if she were awarded the home she would attempt to repair the home but 

would need help financially from the husband. According to the husband, pursuant to an 

online site that estimates property values, the home is currently worth $50,000. The wife 

contended the insurance company valued the replacement value of the home at $110,000. 

{¶6} While the divorce was pending, both parties still lived in the home along 

with their three sons; the husband and wife have separate bedrooms. The evidence 

indicates that both parties are close to their children so the living arrangement is 

convenient for caring for the children. 

{¶7} The parties did not share checking or savings accounts (except for a brief 

period at the beginning of the marriage), nor did they share credit card accounts. The 

wife accrued $48,000 in debt that she claimed to have spent on furnishing the home and 

buying food, clothing, and other items for the children. She consolidated her debt 

through a debt management company, which negotiated with her creditors to lower the 

amount she owed. She has been paying off the reduced amount and currently owes about 

$2,300 on the principal and $400 in interest. She no longer has the credit cards that were 
part of the debt consolidation deal. However, she contends she owes $1,800 on a Sam’s 

club card and $800 on a MasterCard. No documents were submitted to support her 

claims regarding her current credit card debt. She did present documentation showing 

she owes $14,000 to Americredit for her van. 

{¶8} The husband inherited two rental properties in Cleveland. The rental 

income the husband receives is used to pay the mortgage on the properties. The wife 

contended she gave the husband $4,000 for repairs on this separate property, but the 

magistrate found the husband’s allegation that the wife never contributed funds to the 

rental properties more credible. 

{¶9} Along with the mortgages on the rental properties and marital home, the 

husband claimed he also owes $7,000 in credit card debt to Citicard, $500 in credit card 

debt to KeyBank, and $2,100 in credit card debt to Barclays. He presented no documents 

beyond his KeyBank bill to show he owed this debt. He also contends he owes $15,000 

on a car note but presented no documentation of the loan. 

{¶10} The trial court determined that each party should be liable for the debt that 

is personally in their own name. The court awarded the husband the marital home, but 

ordered that the wife could live there until the youngest child reaches 18 years of age and 

has completed high school. The court ordered that the husband would be responsible for 

paying the debt, taxes, and homeowner’s insurance on the home during the time the wife 

lives there. The wife was awarded the time share property at a ski resort that the parties 

purchased during the marriage. 
{¶11} The court also designated the wife as the residential parent because she 

spent every night at the marital home while the husband did not. The husband was 

ordered to pay a total of $1,035.25 in child support for the two minor children and also 

ordered to keep the children on his health insurance plan. The trial court ordered the 

parties to pay their own attorney fees. Division of Marital Property

{¶12} In her first assigned error, the wife argues the trial court’s division of 

marital property was inequitable. 

{¶13} When reviewing the propriety of a trial court’s determination in a domestic 

relations case, an appellate court generally applies an abuse of discretion standard. 

Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). This same standard is 

used in reviewing orders relating to a division of marital property. Id., citing Blakemore 

v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983), and Martin v. Martin, 18 Ohio 

St.3d 292, 480 N.E.2d 1112 (1985). “Since it is axiomatic that a trial court must have 

discretion to do what is equitable upon the facts and circumstances of each case, it 

necessarily follows that a trial court’s decision in domestic relations matters should not be 

disturbed on appeal unless the decision involves more than an error of judgment.” Booth 

at 144. 

{¶14} We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the 

property. This was a marriage in which the parties kept separate checking accounts and 

credit cards. Because of the debt acquired by the parties, there was not much in the form 

of assets to divide. The parties agreed to divide their retirement benefits equally. The 
rental properties inherited by the husband are his separate property. Thus, the only 

substantial assets were the marital home and a time share property at Alpine Valley that 

the parties purchased for $17,000. The trial court awarded the time share property to the 

wife. 

{¶15} As to the marital home, the trial court ordered as follows: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that title 

to the Marital Mansion Home located at 778 Lakeview Road, 

Cleveland, Ohio 44108 shall remain with the Defendant as same is 

awarded to him (FMV $32,0001

). However, the exclusive right to live 

at said former Marital Residence is granted solely to the Plaintiff and 

the minor children, until parties’ youngest child, * * *, turned 18 years 

of age. Defendant is granted permission to remain living at the 

marital Mansion Home only if the parties agree to same. If the parties 

do not agree to allow Defendant to remain residing at the former 

Marital Mansion home, the Defendant shall have 40 days to relocate to 

another residence. Defendant shall not be permitted to transfer title to 

the Lakeview Mansion home or otherwise interfere with Plaintiff’s 

right to reside there, with the minor children, until [the minor child] 

 1

The court erred in stating that $32,000 represents the fair market value of 

the home. Pursuant to the magistrate’s report, $82,000 is left on the mortgage. 

The county auditor appraised the value of the home at $50,000. Thus, the $32,000 

is the result of subtracting the value of the home from the balance of the mortgage 

and represents the marital debt for which the husband is responsible. 
turns 18 years old and completes high school. Defendant shall be 

responsible for paying the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and 

taxes on the Lakeview residence and [Plaintiff] shall be responsible for 

paying for all utilities while she lives there. Defendant shall be 

granted liberal access, upon reasonable notice, to the Lakeview home to 

perform necessary maintenance and repairs.

{¶16} The wife argues the trial court erred by failing to consider that the marital 

home was titled in both parties’ names. No evidence of the actual title was presented at 

trial and the bill for the monthly mortgage that was admitted at trial shows that it is in the 

husband’s name only. However, in his answer to the wife’s complaint, the husband 

admitted they both owned the marital home. Regardless, we conclude the trial court did 

not err by awarding the home to the husband. The husband testified that he bought the 

home several years prior to the marriage. He also testified that over the years he has 

performed substantial repairs on the home, and that because the home is over 100 years 

old, it is in constant need of repairs for which he has been responsible. There was no 

evidence that the wife contributed to the mortgage or repairs to the home. 

{¶17} Although the husband bought the house for $16,000, it currently has a 

mortgage of $82,000 because he refinanced the house to obtain money for the repairs. 

He has been and continues to be the person responsible for paying the mortgage on the 

home. Under these circumstances, where the husband has been responsible for the 

repairs and payment of the mortgage on the home, the trial court did not abuse its 
discretion in awarding the house to the husband. The wife even admitted that if the trial 

court awarded her the home she would need financial help with the repairs. 

{¶18} Moreover, although the husband was awarded the house, the court ordered 

that the wife, as the residential parent of the children, be allowed to continue living in the 

home until the youngest of the parties’ children obtains the age of 18 and completes high 

school. During this time, the husband is obligated to pay the mortgage, taxes, and 

insurance on the home. 

{¶19} The wife also argues the court should have considered the fact that the 

husband has $10,000 in stock with Third Federal. The stock was given to all employees 

of the bank as a bonus. Although the husband estimated that the stock was worth 

$10,000, the documentation indicated it was worth $6,677. Given the wife was awarded 

the time share property that the wife estimates is valued at $30,000, the court did not err 

in refusing to award the wife the stock. 

{¶20} The wife also argues that the trial court should have considered the 

husband’s conduct in dividing the property. She contends the husband frequently 

consumes alcohol and that she is the one that cares for the family and is responsible for 

the household expenses. However, there is nothing in the evidence to support these 

allegations beyond the wife’s self-serving statements. There is no evidence that the 

husband has a problem with alcohol beyond the wife’s assertion. Nor is there evidence 

that he does not pay for household expenses. He has paid for the mortgage, the cable 

T.V., and although there was a dispute regarding the payment of the water bill, for which 
the wife was obligated to pay half, it appears the matter has been resolved. The wife also 

contends that the husband has failed to contribute towards their son’s college education. 

However, a document was presented showing he did pay for a portion of the tuition. 

Additionally, as the magistrate correctly determined the payment of an adult child’s 

schooling is not marital debt. Accordingly, the wife’s first assigned error is overruled. 

Spousal Support

{¶21} In her second assigned error, the wife argues that the trial court erred by 

failing to award her spousal support or attorney fees to equalize the division of property. 

{¶22} An award of spousal support will be reversed on appeal only if an abuse of 

discretion is shown. Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21, 24, 550 N.E.2d 178 (1990). 

In determining whether to grant spousal support and in determining the amount and 

duration of the payments, the trial court must consider the factors listed in R.C. 

3105.18(C)(1)(a)-(n). Deacon v. Deacon, 8th Dist. No. 91609, 2009-Ohio-2491, citing 

Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (1988), paragraph one of the 

syllabus. The goal of spousal support is to reach an equitable result. Id. at 96. 

{¶23} Here, the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3105.18 prior 

to ordering the support. The factors the court considered were that (1) the parties were 

married for 21 years; (2) both parties are earning a salary with the wife making less than 

the husband in spite of the fact she has a college degree and the husband does not; (3) the 

parties are relatively the same age and in good health; (4) both parties consistently lived 

above their means during the marriage as evidenced by their consumer credit card debt 
and home refinancing; (5) the husband and wife are receiving an equal amount of assets 

and liabilities, but the husband is assigned a greater portion of the marital debt; and (6) 

both parties have stable employment. 

{¶24} Based on a consideration of these factors, the court awarded the wife 

spousal support in the form of the husband paying the mortgage and taxes on the marital 

home that the wife will live in until their youngest child turns 18 and graduates from high 

school. The amount was ordered to be nontaxable to the wife. This amounts to $800 a 

month and results in the wife having a place to live for free for at least seven years. We 

conclude under the facts of this case, the amount of spousal support was equitable. 

Accordingly, the wife’s second assigned error is overruled. 

Attorney Fees

{¶25} In her third assigned error, the wife argues the trial court erred by failing to 

award her attorney fees. 

{¶26} An award of attorney fees lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. 

Rand v. Rand, 18 Ohio St.3d 356, 359, 481 N.E.2d 609 (1985). In order to find an abuse 

of discretion, we must determine the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 

217, 450 N.E.2d 1140. 

{¶27} R.C. 3105.73(A) reads as follows: 

In an action for divorce, dissolution, legal separation, or annulment of 

marriage or an appeal of that action, a court may award all or part of 

reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to either party if the 

court finds the award equitable. In determining whether an award is 
equitable, the court may consider the parties’ marital assets and 

income, any award of temporary spousal support, the conduct of the 

parties, and any other relevant factors the court deems appropriate. 

{¶28} The magistrate recommended that each party should be responsible for 

their own attorney fees because the wife will have more annual income available than 

husband. The husband is carrying more of the marital debt, and the wife is provided with 

at least seven years of free housing in the form of spousal support. Under these 

circumstances, the trial court did not err by refusing to award the wife attorney fees. 

Additionally, although the wife argues the court should have conducted a hearing on the 

attorney fees, her counsel never objected to the magistrate’s suggestion at the hearing that 

the parties submit their fees in writing and never requested a hearing regarding the fees. 

Accordingly, the wife’s third assigned error is overruled. 

{¶29} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant his costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into 

execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, J., and 
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR