Aramark

Distribution of marital property de facto termination date of marriage R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)(b) abuse of discretion R.C. 3119.82 award of deduction to nonresidential parent. Wife and Husband separated in 2012, and Husband obtained a child support order and paid that order from that time. The parties lived apart and did not intertwine their finances. Husband paid child support from March 23, 2012. The trial court used the date of the child support order as the de facto date of termination of the marriage for the purposes of dividing property and thus awarded Husband his pension, which he obtained interest in after the de facto date of termination. Further, although a disparity in Husband's and Wife's reported incomes existed, the trial court awarded Husband the federal tax deductions for their children. The date of termination of marriage is presumed to be the date of the final hearing in the divorce case, but the trial court may select dates that it considers equitable in determining the division of marital property pursuant to R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)(b). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by using a de facto date of termination where the parties' finances were not intertwined, they did not seek to reconcile the marriage other than for the sake of the children, where the parties lived apart for years, and husband obtained an order for and continually paid child support for over a decade. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by using a de facto termination date, it did not abuse its discretion by awarding Husband the entirety of his pension where he obtained interest in the pension after the de facto termination date of the marriage. R.C. 3119.82 provides that a court may award the ability to claim children as dependents for federal income tax purposes to a nonresidential parent if the court determines it would further the best interest of the children and payments for child support are substantially current. Wife argued that because she is the re