[Cite as Karapondo v. Weyer, 2019-Ohio-1937.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
DANIEL KARAPONDO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-18-68
v.
DARLENE D. WEYER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Domestic Relations Division
Trial Court No. DR 2017-0486
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 20, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Martin J. Holmes, Sr. for Appellant
Clay W. Balyeat for Appellee
Case No. 1-18-68
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Darlene D. Weyer (“Wife”), appeals the
November 19, 2018 Final Judgment Entry of Divorce issued by the Allen County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting the complaint for
divorce filed by plaintiff-appellee, Daniel L. Karapondo (“Husband”). On appeal,
Wife claims that the trial court erred in failing to incorporate a specific portion of
the parties’ oral settlement agreement regarding the division of personal property
into the Final Judgment Entry of Divorce.
Procedural History
{¶2} On November 17, 2017, Husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife
timely filed an answer and counterclaim also seeking a divorce. The case proceeded
to discovery.
{¶3} On October 11, 2018, the parties appeared before the trial court and
advised that they had reached an oral settlement agreement regarding the division
of marital and separate property. The agreement was presented on the record and
approved by the trial court. Thereafter, in its October 12, 2018 Judgment Entry, the
trial court ordered Wife’s counsel to reduce the agreement to writing for signature
and approval by the parties.
{¶4} The record indicates that there was disagreement between parties
regarding personal items located at one of the homes. As a result, Husband refused
-2-
Case No. 1-18-68
to approve the proposed Final Judgment Entry of Divorce prepared by Wife’s
counsel.
{¶5} On October 31, 2018, the trial court issued an order requiring “the
parties to submit a Judgment Entry of Divorce reflecting the agreement placed on
the record on * * * October 11, 2018.” (Doc. No. 184).
{¶6} On November 19, 2018, the trial court issued its Final Judgment Entry
of Divorce.
{¶7} Wife filed this appeal, asserting the following assignment of error.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, CONTRARY TO THE PARTIES’
ORAL SETTLEMENT AND WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING, THE BATY ROAD PERSONAL PROPERTY
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED SINCE THE
PARTIES’ SEPARATION.
{¶8} In her sole assignment of error, Wife argues that the trial court erred
when it issued a Final Judgment Entry of Divorce containing a property division not
agreed upon by the parties in their oral settlement. Specifically, Wife argues that
the trial court’s Final Judgment Entry of Divorce failed to specify that she is entitled
to retain the personal property she purchased after the separation located at the
parties’ Baty Road home, where Wife lived for a short period of time while the
divorce proceedings were pending. Wife further maintains that the trial court erred
when it did not grant her request for an evidentiary hearing on the matter prior to
issuing its Final Judgment Entry of Divorce.
-3-
Case No. 1-18-68
{¶9} For his part, Husband asserts that the terms of their settlement
agreement regarding the personal property at the Baty Road home were
unambiguous and sufficiently clear. Husband further claims on appeal that Wife
simply “wants to retry the portion of the agreement about which she is now
unsatisfied.” (Appe. Brief at 5).
Legal Standard
{¶10} Generally, “[a] trial court has broad discretion in making divisions of
property in domestic cases.” Middendorf v. Middendorf, 82 Ohio St.3d 397, 401,
1998-Ohio-403, citing Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (1982). Thus, “[a] trial
court’s decision will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion.” Id., citing Holcomb
v. Holcomb (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 128; Martin v. Martin, 18 Ohio St.3d 292, 294-
295(1985). Abuse of discretion implies that the court acted in an unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable fashion. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217,
219, (1983).
{¶11} “ ‘The law favors the resolution of controversies and uncertainties
through compromise and settlement rather than through litigation.’ ” Spercel v.
Sterling Industries, Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36, 38 (1972), quoting 15 American
Jurisprudence 2d 938, Compromise and Settlement, Section 4. A settlement
agreement in a divorce action is a contract between the parties terminating a
marriage. See Schrock v. Schrock, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2005-04-015, 2006-
-4-
Case No. 1-18-68
Ohio-748, ¶ 14. “It is well-established that where negotiations between the
[divorcing] parties have resulted in an agreement as to property division, the terms
of which are memorialized on the record, the court may properly incorporate the
agreement into its journal entry and make it a part thereof.” Id. at ¶ 13.
Relevant Factual Background
{¶12} The record reflects that after Husband filed his complaint for divorce,
Wife moved out of the marital home on Beeler Road and temporarily relocated to
the home the couple owned on Baty Road. The record suggests that Wife had
purchased personal property after the separation to furnish the Baty Road home. At
some point during the divorce proceedings, the parties switched residences—that is,
Wife moved into the marital home on Beeler Road and Husband moved into the
Baty Road home. This appears to be the status of the parties’ residences at the time
of the oral settlement agreement on October 11, 2018.
{¶13} As stated above, the parties placed their property settlement agreement
on the record before the trial court. A transcript of those proceedings were provided
to this Court on appeal. With regard to the personal property located at the marital
residence, the Beeler Road home where Wife resided, the transcript states that the
parties agreed that Wife “will receive all the tangible personal property at the Beeler
Road property with the exception [Husband] will receive the nine items that were
listed on a letter from [Husband’s counsel] * * *.” (Doc. No. 191 at 4). These items
-5-
Case No. 1-18-68
included: books and documents from college; a Sauder desk and bookshelf; personal
clothing and shoes; his mother’s personal clothing and her furniture; a chainsaw; a
roll top desk; his family videos when he was young and the accompanying projector;
his softball glove; and a Bud light sign. (Id. at 4-5). Counsel then discussed the
specific personal property items Wife would receive.
Wife’s Counsel: Now [Husband] will keep the tangible personal
property in his possession except what will be going to [Wife] and
if you would read…if you could bring that over here so..
Husband’s Counsel: I will, uh…
Wife’s Counsel: Bring it over here so we can go through it
together here.
Husband’s Counsel: Yea. Yea. We can go through it together.
Okay. I’ll…I’ll read it since I have it in front of me. There are
two lamps that are owned by Gina [Wife] gets; her dad, David’s
vacuum sweeper; the…uh, all Baty Road property [Wife]
purchased pre-maritally and gifted property. Still…still some
stuff over there.
(Doc. No. 191 at 5-6).
{¶14} The parties continued to discuss the exchange of personal property.
The only other notable discussion regarding the personal property at the Baty Road
house was as follows: Wife was to “receive the new bed that she purchased for the
Baty Road [sic]; mattress she’s paying on; and she’s going to exchange that for her
king mattress that she has on her bed. Okay. There’s a television that she bought
for the Baty Road [sic], it’s a 4-D television, that’s going to be exchanged for
-6-
Case No. 1-18-68
[Husband] receiving from the Beeler House the curved eight-two inch TV.” (Doc.
No. 191 at 11-12). After counsel presented the agreement on the record, both
Husband and Wife affirmatively stated, in response to inquiry by the trial court, that
they understood the terms of the agreement and “that the agreement now divides[s]
and distribute[s] any and all assets and debts that you are aware of in this case[.]”
(Doc. No. 191 at 25, 29).
{¶15} Approximately ten days later, Wife filed a motion to suspend her
spousal support payments to Husband. Wife claimed that she had arranged with
Husband to retrieve her personal property from the Baty Road home and that when
she arrived to the house to load the items on a rented moving van Husband refused
to release the items to her. Wife attached a list of several items located at the Baty
Road home that she claimed she is entitled to receive. Notably, several items were
not specifically itemized on the record at the hearing on the parties’ oral settlement.
Wife requested a hearing to resolve the matter.
{¶16} Husband filed a response to Wife’s motion asserting that he did not
release all the listed property to Wife because she was attempting to retrieve
additional personal property items that were not included in the parties’ oral
agreement. Specifically, Husband stated in his response that “[t]hroughout the
course of the negotiations, the items were appraised * * * and all addressed in terms
-7-
Case No. 1-18-68
of allocating certain monetary assets in each parties [sic] column in an attempt to
equalize distributions.” (Doc. No. 180).
{¶17} Wife subsequently filed another motion requesting a hearing to resolve
her pending motion and for the trial court to issue a Final Judgment Entry of Divorce
based on Wife’s claims that Husband refused to approve the proposed Judgment
Entry of Divorce prepared by Wife’s counsel. Specifically, Wife stated in this
motion that “[t]he Final Judgment Entry of Divorce has been prepared and sent to
[Husband’s] counsel, who has orally expressed that he has taken exception to the
same, which will require the Court to review the Judgment Entry and the transcript
regarding the issue of personal property.” (Doc. No. 182 at 2).
{¶18} The trial court issued its Final Judgment Entry of Divorce on
November 19, 2018. The record indicates that no hearing was held prior to the
issuance of the Final Judgment Entry of Divorce. With regard to the personal
property located at the Baty Road home in Husband’s possession at the time of the
oral settlement agreement, the trial court’s Final Judgment Entry of Divorce states
the following:
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
[Husband] shall retain free and clear of [Wife] the tangible
personal property in his possession with the exception of the
following items, which shall be the property of [Wife]:
a. Two lamps that are owned by Gina;
b. [Wife]’s Father’s vacuum sweeper;
-8-
Case No. 1-18-68
c. All Baty Road property [Wife] purchased pre-maritally, and
gifted property;
d. The nativity set;
e. One-half of the family ornaments;
f. One-half of the Christmas ornaments;
g. All of [Wife]’s pre-marital Christmas ornaments;
h. One-half of the girls’ Christmas ornaments;
i. One Christmas train set;
j. One-half of the Christmas houses for around the tree;
k. One Christmas Deer;
l. Garland and wooden signs;
m. Disney VHS tapes and DVDs;
n. One-half of the Christmas CDs;
o. [Wife]’s country CDs;
p. CBCO’s will be copied by [Husband] so that [Husband] and
[Wife] each get a full set of CBCOs ;
q. License plate collection;
r. [Wife]’s Mother’s bar stools;
s. [Wife]’s Father’s safe (small one);
t. Copper Kitchen Aid mixer;
u. The Fat Tire neon bar sign;
v. One-half of the games from the basement closet;
w. The new bed that she purchased for Baty Road;
x. The mattress that she is still paying on (in exchange for the
king mattress which will go to [Husband]; and
y. Television that she bought for Baty Road (4D television) this is
to be exchanged with [Husband] receiving from the Beeler
Road property the largest TV at the Baty Road property.
(Doc. No. 186 at 14-16).
Discussion
{¶19} On appeal Wife contends that there are three categories of personal
property located at the Baty Road home which she is entitled to receive based upon
the oral settlement agreement: 1) the property purchased by Wife since the
separation; 2) Wife’s pre-marital property; and 3) Wife’s gifted property. (Appt.
-9-
Case No. 1-18-68
Brief at 3). Thus, Wife maintains that the trial court improperly “conflated” these
categories, reducing the three categories of Baty Road personal property to two
categories, 1) property purchased “premaritally;” and 2) gifted property.
{¶20} Wife further argues that even though the settlement terms read into the
record appeared reasonably clear at the time, the parties were subsequently unable
to agree upon the meaning and effect of those terms. Therefore, Wife asserts that it
was error for the trial court not to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the “obvious
disagreement of the parties” concerning the distribution of the Baty Road personal
property. (Appt. Brief at 8). In making this assertion, Wife relies upon the Supreme
Court of Ohio’s decision in Rulli v. Fan Co., for the proposition that: “Where the
meaning of terms of a settlement agreement is disputed, or where there is a dispute
that contests the existence of a settlement agreement, a trial court must conduct an
evidentiary hearing prior to entering judgment.” 79 Ohio St.3d 374 (1997), syllabus.
{¶21} However, we note that unlike the case sub judice, the
misunderstanding at issue in Rulli was substantive; the parties “disputed nearly
every major element of the purported agreement.” Rulli at 377. Accordingly, the
Court in Rulli determined that the ultimate inquiry is whether the court finds an
evidentiary hearing necessary to clarify the terms or effect of the agreement. Id;
see, also, Spicer v. Spicer, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-14-101, 2015-Ohio-799, ¶ 14. In
the instant case, the property division included in the trial court’s Final Judgment
-10-
Case No. 1-18-68
Entry of Divorce mirrored the terms and items identified and assented to by the
parties on the record before the trial court. Thus, it now appears that Wife is
attempting to expand upon the parties’ agreement by adding additional items not
identified on the record at the settlement hearing.
{¶22} The record further indicates that the parties had a substantial amount
of personal property itemized in multiple binders, which were not made part of the
record. The parties’ negotiations regarding these items were also outside the record.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the parties were able to agree upon the division of
a million dollars’ worth of real property, sizable financial assets, the custody and
support of their children and spousal support. In light of the parties’ ability to settle
upon the terms resolving the major issues at stake in their divorce, it is somewhat
disingenuous that at issue on appeal is the seeming inconsequential division of
unspecified personal property purchased by Wife at some point during the divorce
proceedings to furnish her temporary residence, which may or may not have been
purchased with marital funds.1 See Kohler v. Kohler, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2009 CA
3, 2009-Ohio-3434, ¶ 22 (stating that “Rulli reinforces our view that objections to
settlement agreements are sometimes appropriate and should be allowed, but it does
not support Mr. Kohler’s assertion that a hearing is required for even very minor
disputes about the terms of a settlement agreement”).
1
The parties do not specify the personal property in dispute, when the property was purchased, or the amount
and/or character of funds used to purchase the property. Nor is this information ascertainable from the record.
-11-
Case No. 1-18-68
{¶23} This notwithstanding, the trial court and this Court must rely upon the
agreement entered into by the parties on the record, which demonstrates that the
terms of the agreement were clear and voluntarily assented to by the parties in the
presence of the trial court. Further, Wife does not claim undue influence, duress,
fraud or coercion in their attempt to settle. To the contrary, she confirmed to the trial
court her understanding of the agreement and its terms, and also expressly affirmed
her intention to waive any hearings on the matter. Accordingly, we conclude that
the trial court accurately incorporated the parties’ oral settlement agreement
regarding the Baty Road personal property into its Final Judgment Entry of Divorce
as such agreement was placed upon the record, and the agreement did not lack
clarity in its terms. Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to conduct an
evidentiary hearing as requested by Wife. Wife’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶24} Based on the foregoing, the assignment of error is overruled and the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr
-12-