Scott

R.C. 3105.171; Cuyahoga C.P., Dom.Rel.Div., Loc.R. 14; financial disclosure statement; motion for new trial; new evidence; abuse of discretion; notice of appeal; determination of marital property. Husband, pro se, filed a complaint for divorce. Wife, pro se, filed an answer and counterclaim. Pursuant to Cuyahoga C.P., Dom.Rel.Div., Loc.R. 14, the court issued an order requiring financial disclosure statements to be filed. Wife filed statement; husband did not. Parties appeared for trial and proceeded pro se. After trial and divorce decree issued, counsel for wife appeared and issued subpoenas. Counsel then filed a motion for new trial. After the court denied the motion for new trial, counsel filed a notice of appeal from the divorce decree and the denial of the motion. Counsel also filed a motion for relief from judgment. Counsel sought and was granted a remand from appellate court for the court to rule upon the motion for relief from judgment. After the court denied the motion, no notice of appeal of the denial was filed. The domestic relations court did not commit an error of law by proceeding to trial where husband had not filed a financial disclosure statement. Neither R.C. 3105.71 nor Cuyahoga C.P., Dom.Rel.Div., Loc.R. 14 prohibits trial where disclosures are not made. Further, wife did not seek discovery prior to trial. The domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion by denying wife's motion for new trial where that motion was based on evidence that could have been reasonably obtained before trial. The appellate court did not have jurisdiction to review the court's denial of the motion for relief from judgment where no notice of appeal was taken of that judgment. The court's resolution of the evidence at trial to determine whether a condominium was marital property was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious where the wife's testimony regarding the purchase of the condominium was inconsistent.

The trial court erred in awarding the appellee $1,200 for one month of unpaid rent. The appellants' payment obligation to the appellee under a land contract terminated on June 30, 2018, when the parties signed a written land contract cancellation and release of their land contract. Thereafter, the appellants remained in the appellee's residence for two full months as month-to-month tenants. The record contains two $1,200 cancelled checks from the appellants corresponding to those two months. Therefore, the record does not support the trial court's determination that the appellants owed the appellee another $1,200. The record also contains a minor arithmetic error in the amount of the trial court's judgment, which we correct. Judgment against the appellants and in favor of the appellee modified from $2,018.57 plus interest and costs to $821.21 plus interest and costs. As so modified, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.