Victor v. Kaplan

Excerpt

Divorce marital property separate property tracing abuse of discretion credibility lost future wages expert marital debt R.C. 3105.171 proportional share tracing methodology Evid.R. 702 marital labor spousal support R.C. 3105.18 attorney fees Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) Loc.R.27 supplemental objections praecipe Civ.R. 24(A) motion to intervene Civ.R. 75(B) contempt order sanction credit personal property loss child support. Wife's settlement proceeds from a former employer are marital property because the settlement was executed during the marriage, payments would begin within seven days of execution of the agreement, and the proceeds from the settlement reflected lost future wages-- income Wife would have earned during the marriage. Where the trial court found Wife's expert witness credible and his testimony helpful, and where Husband failed to submit expert evidence demonstrating that Wife's expert's proportional share tracing methodology is faulty or that the purportedly "missed" deposits or incomplete report resulted in the expert's inability to accurately trace Wife's separate property, the trial court did not err in permitting the expert's testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Husband failed to rebut Wife's expert testimony concerning Wife's traceable separate property and Husband's marital labor did not contribute to the growth of Wife's financial accounts. To the extent the trial court based its award of Wife's separate property interests in the properties located on Bendemeer, Brentwood, and Edgewood on its erroneous conclusion that the settlement proceeds are Wife's separate property, the trial court erred. The trial court did not err in finding Husband had an ownership interest in the Antisdale property where Husband provided only his self-serving testimony regarding his sister's interest in the property and the magistrate found Husband's testimony not credible. The court's allocation of the marital debt was supported by t