Court Opinion

ID: 9953621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 15:10:18.166292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:22.046835
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Carter v. Carter, 2024-Ohio-1046.]

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                           HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 TIMOTHY CARTER,                              :   APPEAL NO.     C-230322
                                                  TRIAL NO.      DR-2000986
      Plaintiff-Appellee,                     :

   vs.                                        :     O P I N I O N.

 SHIRDETTE CARTER,                            :

      Defendant-Appellant.                    :

Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause
                           Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 22, 2024

Patricia A. Baas, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Trolinger Law Offices, LLC, and Christopher L. Trolinger, for Defendant-Appellant.
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Judge.

       {¶1}    Defendant-appellant Shirdette Carter appeals from the domestic

relations court’s judgment in her divorce case against plaintiff-appellee Timothy

Carter. Shirdette raises six assignments of error relating to distinct aspects of the

court’s decisions allocating the couple’s property and debts, spousal support, and

timeline for compliance with the court’s order. For the following reasons, we affirm

the judgment of the domestic relations court in part, we reverse it in part, and we

remand the cause to the domestic relations court for further proceedings.

       {¶2}    Timothy filed for divorce from Shirdette in July 2020. At the time of

filing, the couple had one minor child together, who has since turned 18. The parties

stipulated to certain matters, and the disputed matters were tried to a magistrate on

April 7, May 31, and July 25, 2022. The magistrate issued a decision in October 2022,

and Timothy timely filed objections. The trial court heard the objections in January

2023. The trial court issued its decision on the objections in February and issued the

divorce decree on May 26, 2023. This appeal timely followed.

                            I. First Assignment of Error

       {¶3}    Shirdette argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining

Timothy’s objection to the admission of certain, disputed credit card bills that

Shirdette had not disclosed prior to the start of trial. The bills are from Navy Federal

Credit Union, Capital One, PayPal, and Discover. The existence of these bills was not

disclosed until after the start of the trial. On the second day of trial, Shirdette proffered

additional exhibits that had not been included in the exhibit book on the first day of

trial. Although many of the new exhibits were added with new exhibit designations,

some were added as additional pages to existing exhibits. The August 2020 statement

                                             2
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

from each of the disputed credit card bills was added as an additional page to Exhibit

P.1 Because of the late discovery, the magistrate included in the scheduling order for

the continuation of the trial that:

        Ms. Carter shall turn over to Mr. Carter 24 months of statements

        previous to August 2020 from the following consumer debt accounts:

        Navy Federal Credit Union, PayPal, Discover Card and Capital One. Mr.

        Carter shall do the same (24 months) from any as yet [un]disclosed

        consumer debt account to Ms. Carter. Both parties shall complete this

        exchange of information no later than July 15, 2022.

        {¶4}     When trial resumed on July 25, 2022, Shirdette still had not made the

required disclosures. Consequently, when Shirdette referred to these credit card bills

contained within Exhibit P in her testimony, Timothy raised an objection and also

made an “oral motion in limine” to exclude any reference to the disputed credit card

bills because the bills had not been disclosed pretrial nor in response to the scheduling

order.2 The magistrate presiding over the trial overruled Timothy’s objections and

“oral motion in limine.”

        {¶5}     After all witnesses had testified and the magistrate was reviewing the

list of exhibits with counsel, Exhibit P was specifically mentioned as being “identified.”

Then the magistrate verified with counsel:

        The Court: I have – let’s just go back through these then.

1 Exhibit P included all of the debts Shirdette presented to the court, including several that were not

included in Timothy’s objection.
2 At trial, counsel and the magistrate referred to the objection as an “oral motion in limine.”

Typically, a “motion in limine” is “[a] pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be
referred to or offered at trial.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1038 (8th Ed.2004). Here, the objection was
not raised pretrial, but during trial. As a result, we consider the “oral motion in limine” to be an
objection that was made during the trial to the admission of the previously-undisclosed credit card
debt evidence.

                                                  3
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       Counsel for Shirdette: Um-hum.

       The Court: So I have identified A and B.

       Counsel for Shirdette: Um-hum.

       The Court: D through I, L, P.

       Counsel for Shirdette: Um-hum.

       The Court: R, S, and W through Z.

       Counsel for Shirdette: Um-hum.

       The Court: Any objection to those?

       Counsel for Timothy: No.

       The Court: All right. Those will be admitted.

       {¶6}   The magistrate ordered that the previously-undisclosed credit card debt

be divided equally. Timothy filed the following objection to the magistrate’s decision:

       Husband objects to the inclusion of the Navy Federal Credit Union

       ($24,082.99); Capital One card ending 6474 ($2,366.24); PayPal Credit

       ($2,687.64); and Discover Card ending 3094 ($3,808.12) as marital

       debt to be divided equally. Husband filed a Motion in Limine to exclude

       these debts as Wife did not disclose them to Husband until shortly

       before the second day of trial. During almost two years of litigation, Wife

       never disclosed the identity of these creditors. Given Wife’s documented

       mismanagement of money it is credible to believe these debts were not

       disclosed to Husband during the marriage. He was never afforded an

       opportunity to address the needless accumulation of the debt and

       attempt to mitigate the matter. It is inequitable to force Husband to now

       bear half of this debt.

                                            4
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶7}    The trial court found in favor of Timothy. In its entry on the objections,

the trial court stated:

       The Magistrate ordered the parties to divide evenly the total marital

       credit card debt of $60,200.07. The Magistrate found that $32,944.79

       of this debt “was never disclosed by Ms. Carter in any discovery

       response of as part of the administrative disclosure.” The Magistrate

       acknowledged that Mr. Carter had filed a Motion in Limine to exclude

       this debt once it was revealed. The record reflects that Mr. Carter had to

       file numerous subpoenas to get the information on this debt from

       various credit card companies.

       Ms. Carter ignored the Court’s Mandatory Disclosure Orders as well as

       Mr. Carter’s numerous discovery requests over a two-year period. Mr.

       Carter’s Motion in Limine should have been granted under these

       circumstances. This objection is sustained. Ms. Carter shall be solely

       responsible for the debt set forth in the Magistrate’s Decision at 15(c)

       and shall hold Husband harmless thereon.

       {¶8}    Shirdette argues that Timothy waived any objection to the admission of

the credit card exhibits when he answered “no” to the magistrate’s question of whether

he objected to the identified exhibits, including Exhibit P. Shirdette acknowledges,

however, that Timothy did object multiple times at trial when the disputed credit card

bills were discussed. Shirdette does not advance any other argument as to why the trial

court should not have granted Timothy’s objection.

       {¶9}    We hold that Timothy objected appropriately at trial to the introduction

of the disputed credit card bills. By the time the magistrate was reviewing the exhibits,

                                           5
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the magistrate had already ruled against Timothy as to the admissibility of the bills.

Exhibit P contained the disputed bills and other undisputed bills. Under these

circumstances, Timothy did not need to object again to preserve his evidentiary

objection for review by the trial court. We overrule Shirdette’s first assignment of

error.

                          II. Second Assignment of Error

         {¶10} In her second assignment of error, Shirdette argues that the trial court

erred by allocating approximately $32,000 of marital credit card debt to her. Shirdette

claims that allocating this debt to her is the equivalent of a distributive award to

Timothy, and the court did not consider the factors required under R.C. 3105.171(F)

before making such an award.

         {¶11} Timothy argues in response that while he does not agree that the credit

card debt was marital debt, it was equitable under R.C. 3105.171 for the court to

allocate responsibility for the debt entirely to Shirdette because she failed to timely

disclose it.

         {¶12} When the court identifies marital and separate property during divorce

proceedings, part of the property to be identified includes the marital debts. Sangeri

v. Yerra, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-675, 2020-Ohio-5520, ¶ 48. Marital debt is

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

marital purpose.” Id. Once the court has classified the debts as marital or separate, it

must “determine the amount of the debts, and consider the debts in dividing the

marital and separate property equitably between the spouses pursuant to R.C.

3105.171.” Matheson v. Matheson, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 22CA011881, 2023-Ohio-1709,

¶ 6, quoting Habtemariam v. Worku, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-47,

                                            6
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2020-Ohio-3044, ¶ 58. If the court cannot divide the spouses’ property equitably

solely from marital property, “[t]he court may make a distributive award to facilitate,

effectuate, or supplement a division of marital property.” R.C. 3105.171(E)(1). A

“distributive award” refers to “any payment or payments, in real or personal property,

that are payable in a lump sum or over time, in fixed amounts, that are made from

separate property or income, and that are not made from marital property and do not

constitute payments of spousal support.” R.C. 3105.171(A)(1).

       {¶13} We review the trial court’s equitable division of property, including

debts, for an abuse of discretion. Banks v. Banks, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230006,

2023-Ohio-3229, ¶ 5, citing Boolchand v. Boolchand, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos.

C-200111 and C-200120, 2020-Ohio-6951, ¶ 9. “An abuse of discretion connotes more

than a mere error of judgment; rather, ‘it implies that the court’s attitude is arbitrary,

unreasonable, or unconscionable.’ ” Hayes v. Durrani, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-190617, 2021-Ohio-725, ¶ 8, quoting Boolchand at ¶ 9. An abuse of discretion occurs

when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter

over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427,

2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35.

       {¶14} In this case, the trial court ruled that the magistrate should have

sustained Timothy’s objection to the introduction of the disputed credit card bills. The

court then found that Shirdette “ignored the Court’s Mandatory Disclosure Orders as

well as [Timothy]’s numerous discovery requests over a two-year period and did not

disclose this substantial debt.” It then ordered that Shirdette “shall be solely

responsible for the debt * * * and shall hold [Timothy] harmless thereon.” In reaching

this decision, the trial court considered the evidence of the debt, despite its ruling that

                                            7
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the magistrate should have excluded that evidence.

       {¶15} Although Timothy contests the classification of the disputed credit card

debt as marital debt, he does not advance an argument as to why the debt should have

been classified as Shirdette’s separate debt. We therefore assume, without deciding,

that the disputed credit card debt was properly identified as marital debt. We consider

only whether the trial court erred in ordering that Shirdette shall be solely responsible

for the debt.

       {¶16} The property-division statute, R.C. 3105.171, empowers the court to

“require each spouse to disclose in a full and complete manner all marital property,

separate property, and other assets, debts, income, and expenses of the spouse.” R.C.

3105.171(E)(3). The statute also provides a mechanism for the court to sanction a

spouse for failure to comply with the court’s disclosure orders. Under R.C.

3105.171(E)(5):

       If a spouse has substantially and willfully failed to disclose marital

       property, separate property, or other assets, debts, income, or expenses

       as required under division (E)(3) of this section, the court may

       compensate the offended spouse with a distributive award or with a

       greater award of marital property not to exceed three times the value of

       the marital property, separate property, or other assets, debts, income,

       or expenses that are not disclosed by the other spouse.

       {¶17} Although the trial court did not expressly state that it was invoking R.C.

3105.171(E)(5), it is clear that the court made the required finding that Shirdette had

substantially and willfully failed to disclose the debt as required. Because division

(E)(5) permits the court to make either a distributive award of separate property or an

                                           8
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

award of martial property as a sanction for a spouse’s failure to disclose property, the

court was within its discretionary power to award the debt to Shirdette as a sanction

for her failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders.

       {¶18} Based on the evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s finding

that Shirdette failed to comply with the court’s discovery orders, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in allocating this debt to Shirdette. We overrule Shirdette’s second

assignment of error.

                          III. Third Assignment of Error

       {¶19} In her third assignment of error, Shirdette argues that the trial court

erred in declaring that a 2012 Kia Optima automobile was not marital property, but

rather was “acquired during the marriage in Husband’s name but for the benefit of his

adult daughter.” Factual questions relating to the classification and valuation of

property are reviewed for either the sufficiency of the evidence or the weight of the

evidence, depending on the nature of the challenge. McKenna v. McKenna, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-180475, 2019-Ohio-3807, ¶ 9-10. In the case at bar, Shirdette

challenges the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶20} “In reviewing a weight of the evidence challenge, we weigh the evidence

and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine

whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trial court clearly lost its way and

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

a new trial ordered.” McKenna at ¶ 10, quoting In re A.B., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos.

C-150307 and C-150310, 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 16. However, we review the trial court’s

application of the law de novo. Hoy v. Hoy, 4th Dist. Vinton No. 19CA717,

2021-Ohio-2074, ¶ 20.

                                            9
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶21} At the time of the couple’s separation, Timothy had a 2012 Kia Optima

titled in his name. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the Kia was in an

accident and declared a total loss. Timothy testified that the car was titled in his name

to take advantage of his creditworthiness, but that the car was actually purchased by

Tanyia, his adult daughter from a previous relationship. Timothy also testified that he

did not make any payments toward the car and that the insurance payout after the car

was totaled was used to pay off the loan. According to his testimony and bank records

produced at trial, Timothy did not receive any of the funds from the insurance

payment.

       {¶22} Timothy’s testimony as to the source of funds for the purchase of the Kia

was uncontroverted. Shirdette points to the insurance check made out to Timothy in

support of her claim that the Kia was marital property, but Shirdette could not identify

any bank records that show the deposit of that check into any account to which

Timothy had access.

       {¶23} The trial court held that Timothy “made no payments on the automobile

nor shared in any proceeds from insurance when the vehicle was in an accident and

declared a total loss.”

       {¶24} Shirdette emphasizes that the statutory definition of marital property

under R.C. 3105.171(A)(3) supports her claim that the Kia is marital property. Under

the statute, “marital property” is defined as all of the following, except for separate

property:

       (i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or

       both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement

       benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the

                                           10
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       spouses during the marriage;

       (ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any

       real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement

       benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the

       spouses during the marriage;

       (iii) Except as otherwise provided in this section, all income and

       appreciation on separate property, due to the labor, monetary, or in-

       kind contribution of either or both of the spouses that occurred during

       the marriage;

       (iv) A participant account, as defined in section 148.01 of the Revised

       Code * * *.

R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a).

       {¶25} The crux of Shirdette’s argument is that the Kia was acquired by

Timothy during the marriage, the Kia was titled in Timothy’s name, and no category

of separate property applies to it. Timothy’s argument is that the Kia was not marital

property because it was titled in his name as a way of assisting Tanyia to purchase it

for her sole use. No marital funds were expended to purchase the Kia, nor were any of

the insurance proceeds received as marital funds.

       {¶26} The facts of this case are analogous to the circumstances discussed by

the bankruptcy court in In re Groves, Bankr.N.D.Ohio No. 05-76317, 2006 Bankr.

LEXIS 4376, 10-11 (Apr. 13, 2006). In that case, the court denied a motion for turnover

of an automobile that was titled in the name of the debtor after finding that the debtor

had the vehicle titled in his name “solely as an accommodation” to his son, it was

purchased with funds provided by the son, and it was intended solely for the son’s

                                           11
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

“benefit and use.” Id. at 10. Under those circumstances, the court found that, although

the debtor held legal title to the vehicle, equitable title was held by the son by way of

an express trust that the parties expressed through the purchase arrangement. Id. at

10-11.

         {¶27} These circumstances are similar. Timothy allowed the Kia to be titled in

his name as an accommodation to his daughter Tanyia, Tanyia provided the funds for

the Kia’s purchase, and the Kia was intended for Tanyia’s sole use and benefit.

Although the trial court did not specifically find that Timothy held title in trust for

Tanyia, the court’s conclusion is consistent with this analysis: Timothy held bare legal

title to the Kia, and Tanyia was the beneficial owner. See id. at 10-11. See also Roush

v. Roush, 2017-Ohio-840, 85 N.E.3d 1268, ¶ 20-21 (10th Dist.) (holding that, where

the evidence showed that two savings accounts were used for the exclusive benefit of

the parties’ children, those accounts were not marital assets).

         {¶28} The trial court did not lose its way in finding, based on Timothy’s

uncontroverted testimony, that no marital funds had been used to purchase the vehicle

and that he did not benefit from the insurance proceeds. See McKenna, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-180475, 2019-Ohio-3807, at ¶ 10. From those facts, we conclude that

the Kia was not Timothy’s property at all. Rather, Timothy only held title for the

benefit of Tanyia. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it determined that the

Kia was not marital property. We overrule Shirdette’s third assignment of error.

                         IV. Fourth Assignment of Error

         {¶29} In her fourth assignment of error, Shirdette argues that the trial court

abused its discretion in ordering her to pay $2,085.66 per month for five years in

spousal support. Shirdette bases her argument on (1) the inequity of such a large

                                           12
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

support order while she has to bear significant debts, namely approximately $153,000

in student loan debt, and (2) that the trial court did not explain how it arrived at that

amount for the monthly support payment.

       {¶30} When considering an award of spousal support, the trial court must take

into account the factors enumerated under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). Reddy v. Reddy, 1st

Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-140609 and C-140678, 2015-Ohio-3368, ¶ 23. The statute

permits the court to make an award that is “appropriate and reasonable.” Id. The trial

court has “broad discretion” as to whether to award spousal support and the

appropriate amount of the support. Morrison v. Walters, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-210398, 2022-Ohio-1740, ¶ 3. Accordingly, this court will not disturb the trial

court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

       {¶31} The magistrate’s decision includes an analysis of each of the factors.

Following his analysis, the magistrate awarded $500 per month for three years to

Timothy. Timothy objected to this amount, complaining that it was too low and was

not supported by the evidence in the record. Timothy also pointed out the great

disparity between his and Shirdette’s earning potentials, particularly in light of the

college degree that Shirdette earned during the marriage and Timothy’s poor health

and need for retraining before finding appropriate employment.

       {¶32} At the hearing on Timothy’s objections, Timothy requested a minimum

of $2,500 per month for five years, and preferably $3,000 per month. Timothy based

this on his poor health, the length of the couple’s marriage, and the disparity in their

income.

       {¶33} The trial court sustained Timothy’s objection. The court found that

there was insufficient evidence to support the magistrate’s conclusion that Timothy

                                           13
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

“can earn the same [as his previous income] in another field.” The court also found

that Shirdette is currently paying only $50 per month on the student loan debt

allocated to her. As a result, the court ordered that Shirdette must pay spousal support

to Timothy in the amount of $2,085.66 per month for five years. The trial court also

reserved jurisdiction over the spousal support to ensure that it could modify the

amount or duration, if needed, and required disclosure of tax returns between the

parties to ensure that they could audit for a change in circumstances.

       {¶34} “A trial court must indicate the basis for its spousal support award in

sufficient detail to enable a reviewing court to determine the trial court considered the

statutory factors and that the award is fair, equitable and in accordance with the law.”

Rigby v. Rigby, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2020-07-005, 2021-Ohio-271, ¶ 28, citing

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

the syllabus, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Organ v. Organ,

2014-Ohio-3474, 17 N.E.3d 1192, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.). “A mere recitation of evidence

provides an insufficient basis for an appellate court to review the appropriateness of

the award.” Id. at ¶ 32, citing Zollar v. Zollar, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008-03-065,

2009-Ohio-1008, ¶ 44.

       {¶35} Although the magistrate’s decision includes an analysis of all of the

statutory factors, and the trial court’s order incorporates the magistrate’s decision by

reference, the trial court gave no explanation as to why it rejected the magistrate’s

spousal-support award or how it arrived at the figure of $2,085.66 per month for five

years. Also, no basis for that figure is apparent in the record. See Speigel v. Ianni, 1st

Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-220467, C-230012, and C-230036, 2023-Ohio-3809, ¶ 60

(“[B]ased on the exhibits provided to and referenced by the trial court, we are able to

                                           14
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

review the trial court’s award of [attorney] fees and determine what the fees were

based on.”).

       {¶36} Because it appears that the trial court determined the amount of the

award without any basis evident in the record, we hold that the trial court abused its

discretion in making this award. We therefore sustain Shirdette’s fourth assignment

of error and remand the cause to the trial court to indicate the basis for its spousal-

support award, in accordance with the applicable law.

                          V. Fifth Assignment of Error

       {¶37} In her fifth assignment of error, Shirdette argues that the trial court

abused its discretion by not requiring Timothy to reimburse her for $3,737.80 in

payments she made for Timothy’s life insurance policy. Shirdette had been required

under the court’s “Administrative Temporary Restraining Order” to maintain the

policy and continue to make payments during the pendency of the divorce

proceedings. Shirdette argues that it was inequitable for the trial court to require her

to pay for the postseparation insurance premiums.

       {¶38} The parties’ stipulations note that there was no cash value to the life

insurance policy. The stipulations also state that Timothy “shall retain ownership” of

the policy. At the objections hearing, Timothy testified that Shirdette was the

beneficiary of the policy. However, during the trial before the magistrate, Shirdette

testified that Timothy’s sister was the beneficiary. Timothy claims that as soon as

control over the policy was transferred to him, he terminated it because he was unable

to afford the payments.

       {¶39} The magistrate ordered Timothy to reimburse Shirdette for her

postseparation payments towards his life insurance premiums.

                                          15
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶40} Timothy filed an objection on the basis that Shirdette never requested

relief from the court from the obligation to continue payments for the life insurance

policy, or requested permission from the court to terminate the policy, like she did

with Timothy’s health insurance. Shirdette argued that it was inequitable to require

her to bear the postseparation cost of an insurance policy that benefited Timothy and

provided no benefit to her.

       {¶41} The trial court sustained Timothy’s objection on the basis that Shirdette

never requested relief from the court’s order to maintain the policy during the

pendency of the divorce proceedings. The court found that it would be inequitable to

require Timothy to bear the cost without notice that it would be his responsibility.

       {¶42} Shirdette continued to make the policy payments during the pendency

of the divorce proceedings without objection. As soon as Timothy was required to

make the payments, he canceled the policy because he could not afford it. We hold that

the trial court’s rationale in balancing the equities of this situation was not “arbitrary,

unreasonable, or unconscionable.” See Hayes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190617,

2021-Ohio-725, at ¶ 8. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

reaching this conclusion. We overrule Shirdette’s fifth assignment of error.

                          VI. Sixth Assignment of Error

       {¶43} In her final assignment of error, Shirdette argues that the trial court

erred by requiring her to provide Timothy with proof of payments of their child’s

private school tuition for the 2022-2023 school year by June 1, 2023. Shirdette argues

that she could not comply with this deadline because the divorce decree was not

docketed until Friday, May 26, 2023, and because of the Memorial Day holiday the

following Monday, the decree was not mailed to the parties until May 30. Shirdette

                                            16
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to give her one day to comply

with its order.

       {¶44} The consequence of Shirdette’s failure, as argued by Timothy’s counsel

at oral argument, is that by failing to provide proof of payments by the June 1 deadline,

Shirdette has forfeited the right to recover from Timothy the one-half share of the

tuition payments that the court ordered Timothy to pay. In response to Shirdette’s

argument on appeal, Timothy argues that Shirdette had been on notice that such an

order was likely when the trial court entered its rulings on Timothy’s objections in

February 2023. Accordingly, it should not have been impossible for Shirdette to

comply with such a short deadline.

       {¶45} Under these circumstances, and in the interest of fairness, we agree with

Shirdette. The trial court erred by setting such a short deadline for compliance with its

order. We sustain Shirdette’s sixth assignment of error and remand this cause to the

trial court to set a reasonable deadline for Shirdette to provide documentation of the

school expenses so that she may be reimbursed by Timothy in accordance with the

divorce decree.

                                   VII. Conclusion

       {¶46} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s orders as to the

amount and duration of spousal support and as to the deadlines for compliance

pertaining to the division of school expenses. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in

all other respects. We remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion and the law.

                                                                  Judgment accordingly.

BERGERON, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.

                                            17
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                          18