Court Opinion

ID: 9943011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 16:12:15.496666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:57.552595
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Yarosz v. Montgomery, 2024-Ohio-652.]

            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                JEFFERSON COUNTY

                                     RONALD A. YAROSZ,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                 v.

                                   LISA R. MONTGOMERY,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                        Case No. 23 JE 0006

                             Domestic Relations Appeal from the
                      Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio
                                  Case No. 2021-DR-182

                                           BEFORE:
           William A. Klatt, Retired Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
                                    Sitting by Assignment,
                          Cheryl L. Waite, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                             JUDGMENT:
                                               Affirmed.

 Atty. Jane M. Hanlin, Bruzzese, Hanlin & Bruzzese, LLC, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

 Atty. Aaron M. Meikle, for Defendant-Appellant.

                                     Dated: February 20, 2024
                                                                                     –2–

 KLATT, J.

      {¶1}      Appellant, Lisa R. Montgomery, appeals from the January 19, 2023
judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas, granting her and Appellee,
Ronald A. Yarosz, a divorce and awarding the marital residence to Appellee. On appeal,
Appellant asserts the trial court erred in awarding Appellee the full amount of his
contributions to the house and failing to recognize any premarital interest she had in the
property. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      {¶2}      In 2005, Appellant purchased the marital residence, 559 Township Road
376, Toronto, Jefferson County, Ohio, for $100,000. In 2006, the parties began living
together before marrying on November 6, 2015. No children were born as issue of the
marriage.
      {¶3}      On July 2, 2021, Appellee filed a complaint for divorce. Appellee alleged
Appellant had been guilty of gross neglect of duty, extreme cruelty, financial misconduct,
and the parties were otherwise incompatible. Appellee claimed Appellant had abandoned
the marriage and moved to the State of Indiana. On August 27, 2021, Appellant filed an
answer and counterclaim. Appellant alleged Appellee had been guilty of gross neglect of
duty, financial misconduct, alcohol abuse, extreme cruelty, and the parties were otherwise
incompatible.
      {¶4}      A final evidentiary hearing was held on March 10, 2022.
      {¶5}      As stated, the parties were married on November 6, 2015. They lived at the
marital residence prior to the date of the marriage, from approximately 2006 until late
2011. (3/10/2022 Evidentiary Hearing Tr., p. 10). Appellee moved out in 2011 and moved
back into the home in 2015. (Id. at p. 10-11).
      {¶6}      Appellee began paying the mortgage and other expenses when he first
moved in with Appellant. (Id. at p. 11). Appellee made those payments for about five
years, until the parties ended their relationship for a period of time. (Id.) Appellee
resumed paying the entire mortgage as early as January 2015. (Id. at p. 14-15). Appellee

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                       –3–

made the monthly mortgage payment from January 2015 through the date of the final
evidentiary hearing, March 10, 2022. (Id. at p. 15).
        {¶7}   When Appellee sold his prior residence, he used the proceeds from that
sale to improve the marital residence. (Id.) Appellee provided written documentation
regarding the sale proceeds of his prior home ($101,741) as well as the exact dollar
amount from those proceeds ($75,257.79) that he invested into the marital residence.
(Id. at p. 16-26). Appellant agreed to add Appellee’s name to the deed so that he would
receive the property if something unfortunate were to happen to her. (Id. at p. 15-16).
        {¶8}   Appellant resided in the marital residence until February 23, 2021 when she
moved to the State of Indiana. (Id. at p. 27-28). Appellee said Appellant did not contribute
to any expenses associated with the home, including mortgage payments, utility
payments, or other expenses. (Id.) Appellee stated he was the only one paying the home
improvement loan attached to the residence and that he received no contributions from
Appellant whatsoever. (Id. at p. 28-30).
        {¶9}   On cross-examination, Appellee confirmed he did not believe the marital
residence had any equity in 2012. (Id. at p. 81-82). Appellee explained he was seeking
credit for the money that he invested in the home and that the parties would equally divide
any remaining equity that existed at the time of the final hearing. (Id. at p. 85).
        {¶10} Appellant testified she purchased the home in 2005 and made a $23,000
down payment. (Id. at p. 139-141). When Appellant refinanced in 2012, the residence
was worth $120,000. (Id.) Appellant incorrectly asserted she had $120,000 in equity in
the home. (Id.) In fact, at that time, there was an $80,000 mortgage on the home. (Id.
at p. 141). Appellant said she had pictures showing improvements to the residence but
provided no documentation.         (Id. at p. 142).      Appellant also claimed, without
documentation, that she withdrew $5,000 from her premarital IRA for the home. (Id. at p.
143).
        {¶11} Following the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision recommending the
parties be granted a divorce due to incompatibility and stating in part:

        5. Both Parties wish to retain ownership of the residence located at 559
        Township Road 376, Toronto, Ohio. The testimony indicated that
        [Appellant] purchased the residence in 2005 for $100,000.00 and

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                       –4–

        refinanced the mortgage in 2012 when the house was appraised for
        $120,000.00

        6. Once the Parties were married [Appellee] sold his home and invested
        $75,257.79 into the marital residence. The Parties stipulated and agreed
        that the real estate now has an appraised value of $190,000.00. The
        testimony indicated that [Appellee] has been solely responsible for payment
        of the mortgage and the home improvement loan since the date of the
        marriage.

        7. At the time [Appellant] left the State of Ohio the mortgage balance was
        $36,511.98 and the remaining balance on the home improvement loan was
        $15,964.90. As of the date of separation the equity in the residence was
        $137,523.12. After subtracting the $75,257.79 in separate funds that
        [Appellee] invested in the residence * * *, the remaining equity is
        $62,265.33. [Appellant’s] share is $31,132.66.

(4/4/2022 Magistrate’s Decision, p. 1-2).

        {¶12} On April 14, 2022, Appellant filed objections to the magistrate’s decision.
Specifically, Appellant claimed “[t]he Court erred by awarding [her] pre-marital real estate
to [Appellee].” (4/14/2022 Objections to Magistrate’s Decision, Objection 2, p. 3). In that
objection, Appellant claimed she purchased the property and put $24,000 down as a
down payment in 2005 (which contradicted her testimony at the final evidentiary hearing);
claimed she spent $30,000 renovating the house prior to the marriage (but submitted no
receipts); and claimed she spent $10,000 of her pre-marital IRA on the residence (as
opposed to the $5,000 that she claimed at the hearing in which she provided no receipts).
(Id.)
        {¶13} On August 15, 2022, Appellee filed a response to Appellant’s objections to
the magistrate’s decision. Specifically, regarding Objection 2, Appellee stated in part:

        [Appellant] makes much of the fact that she lived in the marital residence
        prior to the date of the marriage; however, she ignores the undisputed
        testimony during the final evidentiary hearing that [Appellee] had been

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                          –5–

      residing in the house as early as 2006, despite the fact that the parties were
      not married until 2015. (The parties lived in that residence from 2006 to
      2011, split up and were then reunited in 2015.) (TR 10) Additionally,
      [Appellant] ignores the fact that the undisputed testimony at the hearing that
      [Appellee] began paying the mortgage and other expenses at the residence
      well-prior to the date of the marriage. (TR 11)

      [Appellee] introduced evidence that he began paying the mortgage
      associated with the marital residence exclusively in January 2015 and
      continued to make it through the date of the final hearing. (TR 14-15)
      [Appellee] also testified that when he sold his prior residence, [Appellant]
      added his name to the marital residence. * * *

      [Appellee] further testified that he then used the proceeds from the sale of
      his former residence to improve the marital residence. (TR 15) [Appellee]
      testified that he cleared $101,741.00 from the sale of his prior residence
      and invested that money into upgrades to the marital residence. (TR 16-26)
      In fact, [Appellee] traced, with written documentation, that he had
      contributed $75,257.79 to the marital residence – all of which came from
      the sale of his prior home. (TR 26-27) [Appellant] did not dispute that. (TR
      203-204)

      At the hearing, [Appellee] testified that [Appellant] last resided in the marital
      residence on February 23, 2021 and that she never resided there again
      after that date. (TR 27) He further testified that, once [Appellant] left the
      marital residence, she never made any contribution whatsoever to any of
      the expenses associated with the marital residence after that date. (TR 27-
      28) Further, [Appellee] testified that he was the only one to pay the home
      improvement loan with Valley One and that [Appellant] never made any
      contributions to that debt once she left the marital residence in February
      2021. (TR 28-29)

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                      –6–

      [Appellee] testified that he had absolutely no intentions on selling the
      residence and had no intention of living any place else. (TR 30) * * *

      Finally, [Appellee] testified and provided written documentation that he had
      been approved and qualified to refinance the debt associated with the
      marital residence so as to release [Appellant] from the same. (TR 31-32)

      Conversely, [Appellant] admitted that she had been living in West Lafayette,
      Indiana since February 23, 2021 and that she had not lived in the State of
      Ohio since then. (TR 186) She admitted that she had secured employment
      in the State of Indiana and continued to hold that position as of the date of
      the final hearing. (TR 186)

      ***

      In this second Objection, [Appellant] claims that she put down $24,000.00
      as a down payment on the marital residence in 2005, that she spent
      $30,000.00 renovating the house and spent $10,000.00 of her premarital
      IRA on the residence. Unfortunately for [Appellant], she provided proof of
      none of this.

      While [Appellee] could trace every single dollar of his premarital funds that
      went to the house, [Appellant] failed to do the same. She claimed she spent
      $30,000.00, plus $10,000.00 from a premarital IRA renovating the house in
      2005, but she provided no proof whatsoever and conceded that “most of the
      work and the completion of the house – I have pictures – was done in 2017.
      And that’s when we took out that home loan.” (TR 142)

      * * * [Appellant] simply failed to meet her burden to prove any premarital
      interest in the property.

(Emphasis sic) (8/15/2022 Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Objections to Magistrate’s
Decision, p. 3-6).

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                         –7–

      {¶14} A hearing on the objections was held on two separate dates, August 22,
2022 and October 21, 2022. Appellee again explained that he had traced all of the
premarital monies invested into the marital residence and that he had done so with written
documentation, which demonstrated the exact amount of his contributions.
      {¶15} Addressing the objections as raised and argued, the trial court found and
concluded in pertinent part:

      OBJECTION 2 – [Appellant’s] argument regarding the character of the real
      property and the value of her separate property is supported in that she
      purchased the property prior to the marriage; however, there was a
      mortgage and [Appellee] provided evidence tracing his contribution to the
      same as stated in the Magistrate’s decision. Further, although [Appellant]
      claims it is her sole, pre-marital property, she provided no supporting
      documentation or convincing evidence in support of her claim. [Appellee],
      however, was able to prove that he sold his pre-marital home and through
      accounting and receipts demonstrate that some proceeds of that sale were
      used toward [Appellant’s] real estate (addition and remodeling) as well as
      other purchases such as the Parties’ wedding, vacations, and the
      engagement ring. In fact, the record demonstrates that [Appellee] resided
      there as early as 2006. The Court recognizes that the Parties were not
      married at that time. The Court further finds that the Parties stipulated to the
      value of the real estate and to [its] appreciation. The Court further finds that
      although [Appellant] claims she spent $30,000.00 and then an additional
      $10,000.00 of her separate monies on the marital residence, other than her
      testimony provided no evidence of the same. [Appellant] is not in a financial
      position to buy out [Appellee’s] interest. Although she claims she was
      approved for a loan, again, other than her testimony provided no additional
      evidence of the same. Therefore, the Court overrules [Appellant’s] objection
      and finds that the Magistrate’s decision was appropriate and consistent with
      Ohio law. Objection 2 is OVERRULED.

(1/3/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 3).

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                                            –8–

        {¶16} On January 19, 2023, a judgment decree of divorce was filed granting the
parties a divorce based upon incompatibility. The trial court ordered, inter alia, that the
marital residence be awarded to Appellee free and clear of any claim of Appellant.
(1/19/2023 Divorce Decree, p. 2)1.
        {¶17} Appellant filed a timely appeal and raises one assignment of error.

                                       ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

        THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING MR. YAROSZ THE FULL
        AMOUNT OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HOUSE AND FAILING TO
        RECOGNIZE ANY PREMARITAL INTEREST MS. MONTGOMERY HAD
        IN THE PROPERTY.

        {¶18} In her sole assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
awarding Appellee the full amount of his contributions to the residence. Appellant further
claims the court failed to distinguish between marital and separate property, pursuant to
R.C. 3105.171, and failed to recognize her premarital interest in the property. Appellant
asserts the court erred in awarding her only $31,132.66.                         See (1/19/2023 Divorce
Decree).

        A trial court has broad discretion when allocating marital assets. Neville v.
        Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275, 791 N.E.2d 434, 2003-Ohio-3624, at ¶ 5;
        Stevens v. Stevens (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 115, 120, 492 N.E.2d 131.
        Generally, we would review the overall appropriateness of the trial court’s
        property division in divorce proceedings under an abuse of discretion
        standard. Cherry v. Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 355, 421 N.E.2d
        1293. However, the characterization of property as separate or marital is a
        mixed question of law and fact and the characterization must be supported

1 The decree lists that Appellee contributed $75,257.79 to the residence; the outstanding balance on the

mortgage was $36,511.98; and the balance on the home improvement loan is $15,964.90. When
determining Appellant’s share of the equity in the property, the trial court started with the stipulated appraisal
value of $190,000, subtracted the balance of the mortgage and the home improvement loan to determine
a total equity of $137,523.12. The court then subtracted Appellee’s contributions of $75,257.79 and
determined the remaining equity to be $62,265.33. The court then divided the remaining equity between
the parties and awarded Appellant $31,132.66. (Id.)

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                         –9–

      by sufficient, credible evidence. Sanor v. Sanor, 7th Dist. No. 2001 CO 37,
      2002-Ohio-5248, at ¶ 53; see also Middendorf v. Middendorf, 82 Ohio St.3d
      397, 401, 1998-Ohio-0403. Once the characterization has been made, the
      actual distribution of the asset may be properly reviewed under an abuse-
      of-discretion standard. Id.

Teaberry v. Teaberry, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07 MA 168, 2008-Ohio-3334, ¶ 13.

      An appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination of property division
      under a manifest weight of the evidence standard. Martin v. Martin (1985),
      18 Ohio St.3d 292, 480 N.E.2d 1112. A judgment of a trial court will not be
      reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence if the court’s
      judgment is supported by some competent, credible evidence. C.E. Morris
      Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578,
      syllabus. This standard of review is highly deferential and even “some”
      evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment and prevent a reversal.
      Barkley v. Barkley (1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 155, 159, 694 N.E.2d 989.
      However, the trial court’s decisions are unreasonable if no sound reasoning
      process exists to support that decision. AAAA Ent., Inc. v. River Place
      Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 553
      N.E.2d 597. A reviewing court should be guided by a presumption that the
      findings of a trial court are correct, since the trial judge is able to view the
      witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, and
      use those observations in weighing the credibility of the testimony. In re
      Jane Doe I (1990), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 566 N.E.2d 1181; Seasons Coal Co.
      v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273.

Hippely v. Hippely, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 01 CO 14, 2002-Ohio-3015, ¶ 6.

      {¶19} “A domestic relations court is required, when granting a divorce, to equitably
divide and distribute the marital property.”      Teaberry, supra, at ¶ 14, citing R.C.
3105.171(B). “In order to do this, the trial court must determine what constitutes marital
property and what constitutes separate property.” Id.

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                            – 10 –

        {¶20} R.C. 3105.171, “Division of marital property; separate property,” states in
part:

        (3)(a) “Marital property” means, subject to division (A)(3)(b) of this section,
        all of the following:

        (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 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,
        of either of the spouses * * *.

        (b) “Marital property” does not include any separate property.

        (4) “Passive income” means income acquired other than as a result of the
        labor, monetary, or in-kind contribution of either spouse.

        (5) “Personal property” includes both tangible and intangible personal
        property.

        (6)(a) “Separate property” means all real and personal property and any
        interest in real or personal property that is found by the court to be any of
        the following:

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                         – 11 –

      (i) An inheritance by one spouse by bequest, devise, or descent during the
      course of the marriage;

      (ii) Any real or personal property or interest in real or personal property that
      was acquired by one spouse prior to the date of the marriage;

      (iii) Passive income and appreciation acquired from separate property by
      one spouse during the marriage;

      (iv) Any real or personal property or interest in real or personal property
      acquired by one spouse after a decree of legal separation issued under
      section 3105.17 of the Revised Code;

      (v) Any real or personal property or interest in real or personal property that
      is excluded by a valid antenuptial or postnuptial agreement;

      (vi) Compensation to a spouse for the spouse’s personal injury, except for
      loss of marital earnings and compensation for expenses paid from marital
      assets;

      (vii) Any gift of any real or personal property or of an interest in real or
      personal property that is made after the date of the marriage and that is
      proven by clear and convincing evidence to have been given to only one
      spouse.

      (b) The commingling of separate property with other property of any type
      does not destroy the identity of the separate property as separate property,
      except when the separate property is not traceable.

      (B) In divorce proceedings, the court shall, and in legal separation
      proceedings upon the request of either spouse, the court may, determine
      what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. In
      either case, upon making such a determination, the court shall divide the
      marital and separate property equitably between the spouses, in
      accordance with this section.

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                        – 12 –

       ***

       (D) Except as otherwise provided in division (E) of this section or by another
       provision of this section, the court shall disburse a spouse’s separate
       property to that spouse. If a court does not disburse a spouse’s separate
       property to that spouse, the court shall make written findings of fact that
       explain the factors that it considered in making its determination that the
       spouse’s separate property should not be disbursed to that spouse.

       ***

       (H) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the holding of title to
       property by one spouse individually or by both spouses in a form of co-
       ownership does not determine whether the property is marital property or
       separate property.

R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)-(6), (B), (D), and (H).

       {¶21} Appellant cites to Sicilia v. Sicilia, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 99-CO-66, 2001
WL 1126664 (Sept. 17, 2001), for the proposition that a case must be remanded when a
trial court fails to determine whether proceeds from the sale of the home were marital or
separate. Appellant’s reliance on Sicilia is misplaced. In the case at bar, the trial court
properly determined which party proved a separate property interest. The record reveals
Appellee did and Appellant did not.
       {¶22} Appellant complains Appellee deposited his separate property into what
later would become a joint account. However, this did not convert the property to marital
property as it was properly found to be traceable.        See R.C. 3105.171(6)(b) (“The
commingling of separate property with other property of any type does not destroy the
identity of the separate property as separate property, except when the separate property
is not traceable.”) The trial court complied with R.C. 3105.171(B) because it properly
determined “what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property.”
       {¶23} “‘The party seeking to have a particular asset classified as separate
property has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to trace the asset

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                       – 13 –

to separate property.’” Pettit v. Pettit, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2011-08-018, 2012-Ohio-
1801, ¶ 50, quoting Pruitt v. Pruitt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84335, 2005-Ohio-4424, ¶ 70.
       {¶24} Here, Appellee met his tracing burden and Appellant failed to produce any
evidence challenging that traceability. See, e.g., Victor v. Kaplan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
108252, 2020-Ohio-3116 (Once a party to a divorce proceeding has met his or her burden
in tracing property as separate, the burden shifts to the other spouse to show that the
particular funds were not separate.); see also Estate of Reed v. Reed, 9th Dist. Medina
Nos. 16CA0063-M, 16CA0068-M, 16CA0069-M, 2017-Ohio-8350, ¶ 8, quoting
Eikenberry v. Eikenberry, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 09CA0035, 2010-Ohio-2944, ¶ 28
(“‘merely claim(ing) that the property (* * *) constitutes (* * *) separate property does not
make it so.’”) The record establishes and the trial court properly found that Appellant
failed to demonstrate any separate property interest.
       {¶25} Based on the facts presented, the trial court’s decision does not go against
the manifest weight of the evidence. As stated, Appellee provided written documentation
regarding the sale proceeds of his prior home ($101,741) as well as the exact dollar
amount from those proceeds ($75,257.79) that he invested into the marital residence (his
separate funds).      As of the date of separation, the equity in the residence was
$137,523.12. The trial court properly subtracted the $75,257.79 in separate funds that
Appellee invested in the residence, revealing the remaining equity as $62,265.33, thereby
making Appellant’s share $31,132.66.
       {¶26} The trial court did not err in awarding Appellee the full amount of his
premarital and separate interest in the marital residence and, in turn, did not err in denying
Appellant’s request for the same since she failed to prove her premarital or separate
interest. While Appellee traced his entire separate property interest, Appellant failed to
do the same and did not produce any evidence challenging the traceability that Appellee
demonstrated. We fail to find any error.

Case No. 23 JE 0006
                                                                                    – 14 –

                                     CONCLUSION

      {¶27} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well-
taken. The January 19, 2023 judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas,
granting the parties a divorce and awarding the marital residence to Appellee is affirmed.

Waite, J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.

Case No. 23 JE 0006
[Cite as Yarosz v. Montgomery, 2024-Ohio-652.]

         For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error
 is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
 Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed
 against the Appellant.
         A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
 in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
 a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
 execution.

                                      NOTICE TO COUNSEL

         This document constitutes a final judgment entry.