Hatfield v. Hatfield

[Cite as Hatfield v. Hatfield, 2023-Ohio-289.]

COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STEFANIE L. HATFIELD JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055
JASON A. HATFIELD

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, Case No. 20 DR A 01 0049

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 31, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

C. GUSTAV DAHLBERG JEFFREY W. SHARP
Babbitt & Dahlberg Law, LLC 21 Middle Street
4400 N. High Street – Suite 415 P.O. Box 248
Columbus, Ohio 43214 Galena, Ohio 43021
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 2

Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jason A. Hatfield (“Husband”) appeals the June 7,

2022 Judgment Entry entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division, which overruled his objections to the magistrate’s August 31, 2021

decision and approved and adopted said decision as order of the court. Plaintiff-appellee

is Stephanie L. Hatfield (“Wife”).

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} Husband and Wife were married on June 27, 2009. Two children were born

as issue of said union. Wife filed a complaint for divorce on January 22, 2020. Husband

filed an answer on March 2, 2020.

{¶3} The matter proceeded to trial on June 21, 22, and 23, 2021. The following

evidence was adduced at trial.

{¶4} The parties owned real property located at 3428 Berlin Station Road,

Delaware, Ohio (“Marital Residence”). The Marital Residence was purchased during the

marriage. Husband and Wife both maintained they utilized his/her separate property

funds towards the down payment on the Marital Residence. However, neither party

presented evidence to establish the amount of the funds he/she contributed towards the

down payment. In December, 2019, the Marital Residence was appraised at $515,000.

Following an updated appraisal in May, 2021, the Marital Residence was appraised at

$620,000, based upon market conditions and comparable sales at that time. There were

two mortgages on the Marital Residence at the time of trial: Huntington Bank mortgage

1809 with a balance of $197,607.50; and Huntington Bank mortgage 1858 with a balance

of $39,1721. There were also two tax liens on the Marital Residence, which are related
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 3

to 2016 and 2017 tax debts: the 2016 tax lien in the amount of $27,648; and the 2017 tax

lien in the amount of $53,622.

{¶5} At the time of trial, Wife was employed by Institutional Pharmacy Solutions,

earning $58.50/hour and working full-time. Husband was self-employed, operating Jason

Hatfield Automotive, LLC (“Hatfield Automotive”). Husband’s 2018, and 2019 income tax

returns were admitted into evidence. Husband confirmed the tax returns accurately

reflected the income he earned from Hatfield Automotive during those years. Husband

testified he was also working as a mortgage broker on behalf of Longstreet Financial.

Husband stated he works approximately 40-hours/week in this capacity, but was unable

to offer any testimony relative the income he earns relative thereto. At the same time,

Husband continued to work approximately 30 hours/week for Hatfield Automotive.

{¶6} Husband operated Hatfield Automotive for approximately 14 years.

Husband operated the business as a used car lot prior to the marriage, but he transitioned

to selling new and used recreational vehicles (“RVs”) sometime after the marriage.

Husband incorporated Hatfield Automotive as a Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) on

June 28, 2010, after the marriage. Husband reported 100% of the income from Hatfield

Automotive on his tax return. No evidence was presented as to the value of Hatfield

Automotive prior to the marriage. Husband testified he believed the value of the business

prior to the marriage was $100,000, but did not provide any documentary evidence in

support. Husband testified he and his mother, Barb Hatfield, operated Hatfield

Automotive as partners although there was no partnership agreement or other document

evidencing their agreement or interest in the business.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 4

{¶7} Brian Russell, Wife’s expert, reviewed the most recent three to four years

of tax returns and financial statements, which were compiled by the company’s outside

CPA. Financial documents for 2020, had not been completed. Russell indicated the

records provided the most complete and accurate picture available of Hatfield

Automotive’s finances and its present value. Based upon his review of this information,

Russell concluded Hatfield Automotive had a liquidation value of $97,672. Husband did

not offer any evidence or testimony to rebut Russell’s valuation, nor call his own expert

to provide an alternative valuation. Husband’s mother, who worked for Hatfield

Automotive, testified the liabilities of the company were in excess of $834,456.40.

{¶8} During the parties’ marriage, Husband operated Fieldson Construction

(“Fieldson”). Husband was the sole owner of Fieldson. The only asset Fieldson had was

a Chase Bank account with a balance of $191,546.00, as of May 29, 2020 (“Fieldson

account”). Husband did not provide any testimony or documentation relative to the value

of Fieldson beyond the funds in the Fieldson account. Husband indicated the funds in

the Fieldson account were “borrowed.” However, Husband did not present any

documentation to corroborate the existence of any loans made to Fieldson. Husband is

the only individual with access to the Fieldson account. Husband testified he used the

Fieldson account for various marital expenses, including payments of the mortgage on

the Marital Residence and other personal expenses.

{¶9} Husband is the titled owner of real property located at 626 Streamwater

Drive, Blacklick, Ohio (“Streamwater Property”), which was valued at $180,800, at the

time of trial. Husband used funds borrowed from Hatfield Automotive to purchase the
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 5

Streamwater Property. Husband did not present any evidence of a loan associated with

the purchase of the Streamwater Property.

{¶10} In January, 2020, Husband purchased real property located at 3472

Silverstone Court, Plant City, Florida (“Florida Property”), for $253,000. Husband testified

he purchased the Florida Property for business purposes. The Florida Property was titled

in Husband’s individual name and the mortgage against the property is in Husband’s

individual name. The balance on the mortgage was $201,834.62, as of May, 2020.

Husband stated the down payment for the Florida Property came from “borrowed funds,”

but did not present any evidence of the source of the funds and did not indicate whether

he had a personal obligation to repay the funds.

{¶11} Wife owns the following retirement accounts: a Prudential Cigna 401(k)

account with an approximate balance of $194,365; a Mass Mutual 401(k) account with an

approximate balance of $20,709; and a MedCo cash balance plan with an approximate

balance of $12,956. Wife also owns a Fidelity account with an approximate balance of

$17,305. Husband owns a TD Ameritrade account with an approximate balance of

$25,531.

{¶12} At the close of evidence, the magistrate instructed the parties to file written

closing arguments by July 2, 2021. Via Decision filed August 31, 2021, the magistrate

granted Wife a divorce from Husband, divided the parties’ marital assets and liabilities,

ordered shared parenting, and determined neither party should pay the other child or

spousal support. On September 10, 2021, Husband filed a motion for extension of time

to file objections. The trial court granted Husband’s request and ordered him to file his
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 6

objections on or before September 28, 2021. Husband filed his objections on September

28, 2021, asserting:

1. Magistrate Gall failed to properly consider the assets and liabilities

of Hatfield Automotive, LLC;

2. Magistrate Gall erroneously classified the Chase Bank account

with Fieldson Construction, LLC as a marital asset of the parties;

3. Magistrate Gall failed to properly value the real property located

on Berlin Station; and

4. Magistrate Gall failed to properly weigh the factors set forth in Ohio

Revised Code Sec. 3105.18(C)(1) to determine whether spousal support is

reasonable and in determining the amount and duration of support.

September 28, 2021 Objections to Magistrate’s Decision at 1.

{¶13} Thereafter, on September 28, 2021, Husband filed a request for a copy of

the trial transcript. On October 6, 2021, the trial court provided Husband with a recording

of the proceedings. The trial court subsequently granted Husband an extension until

January 31, 2022, on which to file the written transcript. The trial court granted Husband

two additional extension and the transcript was ultimately filed on March 8, 2022.

{¶14} On March 22, 2022, Husband filed a supplemental brief, additionally

arguing:
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 7

2. Magistrate Gall erroneously classified the Chase Bank account

with Field [sic] Construction, LLC as a Marital [sic] asset of parties.

3. Magistrate Gall failed to properly value the real property located

on Berlin Station.

5. The Global Pandemic caused by COVID 19 and the near

recession that it caused was not considered when determining the Business

Valuation for Hatfield Automotive LLC.

14. the [sic] court ordered the home at 626 Streamwater to be sold

and divided 50/50 leaving the defendant liable for 100 percent of the debt.

March 22, 2022 Supplemental Brief and Affidavit in Support.1

{¶15} Wife filed her brief in opposition to Husband’s objections on April 1, 2022.

Via Judgment Entry filed June 7, 2022, the trial court overruled Husband’s objections and

adopted the magistrate’s decision, with two minor changes, as order of the court.

Husband was the sole owner of Fieldson.

{¶16} It is from this judgment entry Husband appeals, raising the following

assignments of error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION

BY FAILING TO EQUITABLY DIVIDE ASSETS AND/OR LIABILITIES

BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SPECIFICALLY, THE TRIAL COURT

ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY 1. INCORRECTLY, AND UNJUSTLY

1 Erroneous numbering in Husband’s original brief.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 8

ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF WIFE TO RETAIN ALL OF THE PARTIES’

RETIREMENT FUNDS AND 2. BY INCORRECTLY, AND UNJUSTLY

DETERMINING CERTAIN BUSINESS PROPERTIES AND ACCOUNTS

WERE MARITAL FUNDS OF THE PARTIES.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY

FAILING TO AWARD SPOUSAL SUPPORT TO BE PAID FROM THE

PLAINTIFF WIFE TO THE DEFENDANT HUSBAND.

I

{¶17} In his first assignment of error, Husband contends the trial court erred and

abused its discretion by failing to equitably divide assets and/or liabilities between the

parties. Specifically, Husband asserts the trial court abused its discretion in 1) awarding

all of the parties’ retirement funds to Wife; and 2) classifying certain business property

and accounts as marital property.

{¶18} An appellate court reviews 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, 421 N.E.2d 1293. In order to find an abuse of

discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore

(1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140.

{¶19} R.C. 3105.171(C)(1) states: “Except as provided in this division * * * the

division of marital property shall be equal. If an equal division of marital property would

be inequitable, the court shall not divide the marital property equally but instead shall
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 9

divide it between the spouses in the manner the court determines equitable. In making a

division of marital property, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including those

set forth in division (F) of this section.”

Retirement Funds

{¶20} We note Husband failed to object, in his September 28, 2021 objections

and his March 22, 2022 supplemental brief and affidavit in support, to the magistrate's

allocation and award of the marital retirement funds to Wife.

{¶21} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides: “Except for a claim of plain error, a party

shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal

conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law

under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as

required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).”

{¶22} Because Husband failed to object to the magistrate's allocation and award

of the marital retirement funds, we find his argument relative to this issue is waived.

Characterization of Property

{¶23} Husband takes issue with the trial court characterization of Hatfield

Automotive, the Streamwater Property, and the Florida Property as marital property.

{¶24} The characterization of property as marital or separate is a question of fact

which we review under a manifest weight of the evidence standard. Ostmann v. Ostmann,

168 Ohio App.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-3617, 858 N.E.2d 831, ¶ 9. If the parties contest whether

an asset is marital or separate property, the asset is presumed to be marital property

unless it is proven otherwise. C.S. v. M.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 29070, 2019-Ohio-1876,
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 10

2019 WL 2147898, ¶ 16. The party seeking to have the asset declared separate property

has the burden of proving the asset is separate property. Id.

{¶25} We note Husband also failed to object, in his September 28, 2021

objections and his March 22, 2022 supplemental brief and affidavit in support, to the

magistrate’s characterization of Hatfield Automotive, the Streamwater Property, and the

Florida Property as marital property. Having failed to object to the magistrate's

characterization of the aforementioned property, we find Husband has waived any

argument relative thereto.

{¶26} Husband’s first assignment of error is overruled.

II

{¶27} In his second assignment of error, Husband maintains the trial court erred

and abused its discretion in failing to award him spousal support.

{¶28} A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether an award of

spousal support is proper based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Wojanowski v. Wojanowski, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99751, 2014-Ohio-697, ¶ 43, citing

Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64, 67, 554 N.E.2d 83 (1990). As stated, supra, an abuse

of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies the court's attitude

is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore, supra.

{¶29} “The award of spousal support is not based solely on the ‘need’ of the party,

but on what is ‘appropriate and reasonable’ under the factors listed in R.C.

3105.18(C)(1).” Roychoudhury v. Roychoudhury, 3d Dist. Union No. 14–14–19, 2015–

Ohio–2213, ¶ 13, citing Welch v. Welch, 3d Dist. Union No. 14–14–05, 2015–Ohio–1595,

¶ 18.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 11

{¶30} R.C. 3105.18 provides:

(C)(1) In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and

reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment,

and duration of spousal support, which is payable either in gross or in

installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors:

(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not

limited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed

under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code;

(b) The relative earning abilities of the parties;

(c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of

the parties;

(d) The retirement benefits of the parties;

(e) The duration of the marriage;

(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because

that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek

employment outside the home;

(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the

marriage;

(h) The relative extent of education of the parties;

(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not

limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties;
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 12

(j) The contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning

ability of the other party, including, but not limited to, any party's contribution

to the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party;

(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking

spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the

spouse will be qualified to obtain appropriate employment, provided the

education, training, or job experience, and employment is, in fact, sought;

(l) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal

support;

(m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted

from that party's marital responsibilities;

(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and

equitable.

R.C. 3105.18(C).

{¶31} Upon review of the magistrate’s August 31, 2021 decision and the trial

court’s June 7, 2022 Judgment Entry, we find both the magistrate and the trial court

properly considered the factors set forth in the statute relative to the determination of

spousal support, and, under the facts of this case, we do not find the trial court abused

its discretion in determining spousal support was not reasonable or appropriate.

{¶32} Husband’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 07 0055 13

{¶33} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division, is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur