matter proceeded to a contested final hearing on October 31st and
November 1st, 2016. (Doc. No. 66 at 1). From this hearing the trial court issued its
Final Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce (the "Decree") on January 26, 2017. In
Case No. 14-17-01
the Decree Virginia and Ralph were granted a divorce from each other on the
grounds of incompatibility. (Id.).
{¶7} It is from this Decree that Ralph appeals, presenting the following
assignments of error for our review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE HUSBAND BY DENYING TEMPORARY SUPPORT AND SUBSEQUENTLY AWARDING $250 PER MONTH IN SPOUSAL SUPPORT TO START YEARS AFTER THE START DATE UNDER THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE HUSBAND BY FAILING TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO THE BUSINESS ASSETS, FAILING TO IDENTIFY AND CLASSIFY THESE ASSETS, AND FAILING TO CREDIT THE HUSBAND FOR THE TRANSFER OF THOSE ASSETS TO THE WIFE BY MEANS OF A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD AND SUPPORT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE HUSBAND BY CONCLUDING THAT THE ANTENUPTIAL AND SEPARATION AGREEMENTS WERE INAPPLICABLE IN DETERMINING SUPPORT AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL AND SEPARATE PROPERTY AND LIABILITIES.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE HUSBAND WHEN IT DENIED THE HUSBAND'S MOTION TO ADD AN APPRAISAL EXPERT TO THE WITNESS LIST
Case No. 14-17-01
AND ADMISSION OF HIS REPORTS ON THE VALUE OF THE RESIDENCES OF THE PARTIES.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE HUSBAND IN ITS DETERMINATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND VALUE OF THE WIFE'S AND HUSBAND'S RESIDENCE AND MARITAL DEBT AND DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD.
{¶8} Due to the nature of the assignments of error, we elect to address them
out of order, starting with Ralph's third assignment of error first.
Third Assignment of Error
{¶9} In his third assignment of error, Ralph argues that the trial court erred
by concluding that the parties' antenuptial and separation agreements were
inapplicable in determining support and an equitable distribution of marital and
separate property. Specifically, Ralph asserts that because both parties entered into
the antenuptial agreement in 1997 and were represented by counsel, the agreement
must be enforced. With respect to the separation agreement, Ralph argues that since
each party was represented by counsel at the time they entered into the agreement,
and because the agreement provided that it would remain in effect even if no final
decree was issued by the trial court, he was entitled to have it enforced. For the
reasons that follow, we disagree.
Case No. 14-17-01
Trial Court's Ruling on the Agreements
{¶10} The trial court addressed the parties' Antenuptial and Separation
Agreements together in its final divorce decree. (Doc. No. 66 at 2). The trial court
found that even though the Antenuptial Agreement may have received some "lip
service" in the divorce pleadings, the agreement was never