CourtListener opinion 10819704

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[Cite as Petersen v. Nonnenman, 2025-Ohio-794.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
 HENRY COUNTY

PATRICK A. PETERSEN,
 CASE NO. 7-24-09
 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

 v.

ASHLEY M. NONNENMAN, OPINION

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court
 Domestic Relations Division
 Trial Court No. 23DR0082

 Judgment Affirmed

 Date of Decision: March 10, 2025

APPEARANCES:

 Rebecca E. Shope for Appellant

 Margaret G. Beck for Appellee
 Case No. 7-24-09

WALDICK, P.J.

 {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ashley Nonnenman ("Ashley"), appeals the

August 5, 2024 judgment of the Henry County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division, granting a divorce to plaintiff-appellee, Patrick Petersen

("Patrick"). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

 Procedural History

 {¶2} This case originated on December 5, 2023, when Patrick filed a

complaint for divorce against Ashley. After several months of pretrial proceedings,

a final hearing on the complaint was held before the trial court on April 1, 2024 and

April 22, 2024.

 {¶3} On August 5, 2024, the trial court filed a judgment entry in which the

court granted Patrick's complaint for divorce, upon the stipulated ground of

incompatibility, and in which final orders were entered relating to the division of

marital assets and debt, spousal support, and other pertinent issues.

 {¶4} On August 23, 2024, Ashley filed this appeal.

 Summary of Evidence Presented at Final Hearing

 {¶5} At the final hearing held on April 1, 2024 and April 22, 2024, it was

established that Patrick and Ashley met and began dating in January of 2022. By

May of that year, Ashley had moved into Patrick's home, which is a rented half of

a duplex in Napoleon, Ohio that Patrick had been leasing and living in since August

of 2018.
 -2-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 {¶6} Patrick and Ashley were married on May 26, 2023. No children were

born as issue of the marriage.

 {¶7} On November 26, 2023, Patrick moved out of the marital home. Patrick

testified that his decision to leave resulted from the parties' continual arguments

over finances and the fact he received a text from Ashley that appeared to relate to

her being unfaithful. On December 5, 2023, Patrick filed for divorce. Ashley

continued to live in the rented marital residence during the pendency of the divorce.

 {¶8} Beginning in January of 2024, pursuant to temporary orders imposed

by the trial court, Patrick paid the following monthly expenses during the pendency

of the divorce: $800.00 in full rent for the marital home, $250.00 for utilities at the

marital home, and $1800.00 in temporary spousal support to Ashley. The trial court

also issued a temporary order requiring Patrick to make a one-time payment of

$1,000.00 on Ashley's car lease, which he did. While the divorce action was

pending, Patrick also continued to pay for Ashley's car insurance each month, as

well as making payments on two rather significant charges made by Ashley during

that timeframe on his business's Affirm account, which is a program through which

short-term credit is extended for retail purchases at the point of sale. Patrick testified

that those charges were not authorized by him and included a $750.00 charge for

hair extensions and another $750.00 charge that Ashley claimed was for Apple

AirPods she bought her adult son. Contrary to Patrick's testimony, Ashley testified

that the AirPods were a birthday gift for her son that she and Patrick had discussed

 -3-
 Case No. 7-24-09

ordering. Ashely testified that she did not know why her hair extensions were

charged to Patrick's Affirm account. During the pendency of the divorce action,

Patrick also took sole responsibility for making payments on at least three credit

cards previously used by the couple. While the divorce was pending, Ashley also

charged multiple counseling appointments to one of Patrick's credit cards without

his permission, which he then also became responsible for paying.

 {¶9} At the time of the hearing, Patrick had been employed by Miller

Brothers for 16 years and was working then as an asphalt milling superintendent.

Patrick's employment with Miller Brothers was seasonal, and he typically worked

six to seven months per year for that company. In 2023, Patrick's gross income

from that job was $136,970.33, based on having worked an average of 74 hours per

week for the months that work was available, depending on the weather. In the

winter months, Patrick had no income from Miller Brothers and did not draw

unemployment benefits. Rather, he lived on savings accumulated during the months

he actively worked.

 {¶10} In an attempt to earn supplemental income during the winter months,

Patrick started a truck-driving business in January of 2020 called All Class Hauling,

LLC. However, due to having borrowed large sums of money to purchase two semi-

trucks and due to unanticipated business expenses, such as pricey truck repairs, the

business had not yet made any profit as of the time of the divorce hearing. At that

time, the business owed approximately $145,000.00 on the two trucks, and another

 -4-
 Case No. 7-24-09

$7,000.00 for an engine repair. Patrick testified that there was no equity in either of

the trucks, the business had no other assets, the business had never shown a profit,

and he had never drawn an income from the business. On cross-examination of

Patrick, it was established that his business checking account records showed a

balance of $27,188.52 at the time of the marriage and a $39,028.10 balance in

December of 2023, when the parties separated. However, it was also established

that the business owed over $3,000.00 per month for insurance, and that expense

was in addition to the required monthly payments for the large loan used to buy the

two trucks. Ashley testified that Patrick's business had assets, being the two semi-

trucks, but no evidence was presented as to the value of those trucks. Ashley also

testified that she was not seeking anything in the divorce from Patrick's business

checking account.

 {¶11} When Patrick and Ashley began dating in January of 2022, Ashley was

working as an esthetician at a doctor's office in the Dayton, Ohio area, where she

had worked for at least two years. Ashley's income varied over time but she made

$21,738.00 in 2021 and she testified that she had made approximately $70,000.00

working as an esthetician in 2018 or 2019, prior to starting nursing school. Once

she moved in with Patrick in May of 2022, Ashley commuted from Napoleon to her

job in Dayton several days per week. In late 2022 or early 2023, she left that job.

Patrick testified that Ashley told him she was fired from that job for unclear reasons.

Ashley testified that she left the job due to health issues, which she described as

 -5-
 Case No. 7-24-09

female-related, being heavy periods, fatigue, and mental fog. Ashley testified that

she also had anxiety, for which she received counseling and took prescription

medication. Once Ashley left the Dayton-area job, she had no other source of

income. Patrick testified that once Ashley lost that job, he encouraged her to look

for work in northwest Ohio. Ashley had graduated from nursing school in 2021,

but repeatedly declined to take the NCLEX, which is the nursing licensure exam.

The NCLEX is given on numerous dates throughout any given year. Patrick paid

for Ashley to take the NCLEX but she never did. Ashley testified that she did not

seek work after leaving her job in Dayton because Patrick told her she did not need

to work. Ashley then changed her testimony to say her unemployment was not

voluntary but, rather, due to her health issues. Patrick testified that Ashley's claim

that he told her she did not need to work was absolutely not true and he had always

anticipated that Ashley would maintain employment and contribute to their

finances. At the time of the hearing in April of 2024, Ashley testified that she was

scheduled to take the NCLEX on May 6, 2024.

 {¶12} For his personal vehicle, Patrick testified that he drives a Cadillac

Escalade, which he purchased in July of 2020. At the time of the hearing, Patrick

was still making payments on the Escalade, which were approximately $700.00 per

month, and he still owed approximately $14,000.00 on that vehicle. Patrick testified

that the Escalade also needed about $8,000.00 in repair work, based on an estimate

he had received. Based on the current value of the Escalade, which was not

 -6-
 Case No. 7-24-09

specified at the hearing, Patrick testified that he was "upside down" on that vehicle,

meaning he owed more on the vehicle than it was worth at that time.

 {¶13} As to assets, Patrick testified that he has a pension plan through his

union, stemming from his job with Miller Brothers. His pension statements reflected

$75,202.77 in total lifetime contributions at the end of 2023, and that amount had

grown to $80,864.29 by the end of 2024. Patrick also has three hotel loyalty

accounts in his name with substantial point balances, resulting from the travel

required by his position with Miller Brothers. Patrick testified that, while the

divorce action was pending, Ashley used a large number of his hotel points, without

his permission, to pay for three different hotel stays. Ashley testified that she paid

for one of those stays herself, but acknowledged that she had used Patrick's hotel

points without his knowledge on at least one occasion after they separated.

 {¶14} At the time of the hearing, Patrick's only other asset was a personal

checking account, in his name only, at Corn City Bank. While the divorce was

pending, Ashley made an unauthorized payment through that account to her

attorneys in the amount of $2,000.00, which the bank subsequently returned to

Patrick on the basis of a fraudulent transaction. At or near that time, Ashley also

cashed a $400.00 check that she wrote on that account and to which she signed

Patrick's name without his approval or knowledge. When Patrick reported that

forgery to the bank, he opened a new checking account into which he deposited all

of the funds in the preexisting account, in order to protect the funds from misuse by

 -7-
 Case No. 7-24-09

Ashley. As to the value of the checking account funds, the checking account had a

balance of $8,756.63 at the time of the parties' marriage in May of 2023. At the

time of the hearing in April of 2024, that checking account had a balance of just

under $12,000.00. However, the balance at the end of February of 2024 had been

$31,459.80. The funds in that account had dwindled over the time the divorce was

pending due to Patrick's various financial obligations and other expenditures.

 {¶15} Ashley testified that she has a personal checking account that she

opened with her mother after Patrick had filed for divorce in December of 2023. At

the time of the hearing, that account had a balance of just over $200.

 {¶16} With regard to debt, Patrick testified that there were outstanding

balances on several credit card accounts that were in his name but which both he

and Ashley had used during the course of their relationship.

 {¶17} The first card, a Capital One Mastercard (#2918) had a balance of

$8952.67 in July of 2022, when the account was first opened. While the account

was in Patrick's name, Ashley was also provided with a card in her name that was

tied to the account. Ashley used that card over time, adding rather significant sums

to the accumulation of debt on the account. Account records reflect that the balance

owed would go up, then down, and then up again as Patrick made payments on the

card while the couple also simultaneously continued to use the cards for

expenditures. At or near the time of their marriage in May of 2023, that account

had a balance owed of $12,155.57. At the time Patrick filed for divorce in December

 -8-
 Case No. 7-24-09

of 2023, the balance was $12,566.23. As of the date of the hearing, that credit card

account had a balance of $11,500.00.

 {¶18} A second credit card account, being a different Capital One credit card

(#3221), was also in Patrick's name but, in July of 2022, Patrick added both Ashley

and her son to the account as authorized users. At that time, records show that the

card balance was $3,414.45. Once added to the account, Ashley's son used that

credit card sparingly, but Ashley used the card quite regularly. At the time of the

marriage in 2023, the card balance was just over $4,700.00. At the time that Patrick

filed for divorce, the balance was $3,902.81. At the time of the hearing, Patrick had

paid down that debt to a balance of approximately $3,700.00.

 {¶19} A third credit card account at issue related to a Discover credit card

(#3006) that Patrick opened for Ashley's primary use in July of 2022. As with the

other credit card accounts, the Discover account itself was in Patrick's name only,

but Ashley was an authorized user on the account. In the first month, Ashley made

purchases on that card that totaled $963.19. By the second month, the card balance

was $2,373.23, which included some purchases made by Patrick but primarily

stemmed from Ashley's use of the card. The third monthly statement reflects that

Patrick made a $1,400.00 payment on the card balance but that Ashley made new

purchases totaling nearly $1,300.00. Two months after that, the balance had

ballooned to over $8,400.00. That Discover card account had a balance of over

$9,000.00 just prior to the couple getting married. That account had a balance of

 -9-
 Case No. 7-24-09

$9,712.45 at the time Patrick filed for divorce. At the time of the hearing, that card

had a balance of approximately $9,350.00.

 {¶20} On all of the above-referenced credit card accounts used by the couple

throughout the course of their relationship, Patrick always made the monthly

payments from his own earnings and Ashley never contributed any funds toward

paying on the account balances. Patrick testified that he repeatedly urged Ashley to

get a job and contribute to their household finances, but yet she never did. The

testimony reflected that Ashley's only financial contribution to household expenses

during the course of the parties' relationship was helping to purchase groceries back

in 2022 when the couple initially began living together. After a few months, Ashley

then used the credit cards to buy groceries. Both parties agreed that Patrick paid for

all household and living expenses during their marriage, which also included

Ashley's health insurance, her car insurance, her medical and counseling expenses,

and her car's lease payment.

 {¶21} Ashley testified that, at the time of the hearing, she was still living in

the marital residence, being the rented duplex, because her temporary spousal

support did not provide adequate funds for her to move and pay for an apartment.

Ashley testified that her personal vehicle was a leased 2022 Acura MDX that she

began leasing in 2021, and upon which the lease had just expired.

 {¶22} At the hearing, Patrick requested that the funds in his personal

checking account be awarded to him and that he be permitted to keep his trucking

 -10-
 Case No. 7-24-09

business and the Cadillac Escalade. He requested that Ashley be ordered to pay her

fair share of the debt they had accumulated together, and that he receive credit for

the funds he had spent on Ashley's behalf since filing for divorce. Finally, Patrick

requested that his temporary spousal support obligation be terminated.

 {¶23} On the other hand, Ashley requested that she be awarded half of the

increase in the funds in Patrick's personal checking account, based on the difference

between the balance in that account at the time of the marriage and the balance at

the time Patrick filed for divorce. Ashley also asked that she be given half the equity

that had accrued in Patrick's Cadillac Escalade during the time they were married,

based on her definition of "equity" as the total amount of money paid by Patrick on

that vehicle while they were married. Ashley also requested an award of spousal

support for several months in the amount of $3,000.00 per month. Finally, Ashley

asked that Patrick be responsible for all debt on any of the credit cards in his name,

notwithstanding their joint use of the same, and she also requested that he be ordered

to pay a portion of her attorneys' fees stemming from the divorce.

 Summary of Trial Court's Decision

 {¶24} In the August 5, 2024 judgment entry of divorce, the trial court

determined that the de facto date of the termination of the marriage was December

5, 2023, being the date on which the complaint for divorce was filed.

 -11-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 {¶25} The trial court granted Patrick exclusive use of the marital residence

as of June 1, 2024.1 Each party was awarded any household goods that belonged to

him or her prior to the marriage, and any personal property purchased together

during their marriage was ordered to be divided as equally as possible between

them.

 {¶26} With regard to vehicles, it was ordered that Patrick retain the Cadillac

Escalade and any vehicles used by or titled to his business, and that he be responsible

for any indebtedness thereon. The trial court further specifically ordered that Ashley

was not entitled to an award relating to any equity in any vehicle in Patrick's name.

It was ordered that Ashley retain the Acura leased in her name, and that she be

responsible for any indebtedness thereon.

 {¶27} The trial court ordered that Patrick retain any hotel points in his hotel

loyalty program accounts.

 {¶28} Ashley was awarded a marital portion of Patrick's pension, based on

the time period from May 26, 2023, when the parties were married, until December

5, 2023, when the divorce action was filed, with a qualified domestic relations order

to be prepared to effectuate that order.

 {¶29} With regard to Patrick's personal checking account, the trial court

determined that Ashley was entitled to $11,620.28, being one half of the $23,240.56

1
 Following the completion of the divorce hearing but prior to the final judgment entered on August 5,
2024, the trial court issued a temporary order to that same effect.

 -12-
 Case No. 7-24-09

that had accumulated in that account over the course of the marriage. Patrick was

granted any funds in his business bank account, and Ashley was granted any funds

in her personal checking account opened in December of 2023.

 {¶30} With regard to the credit card debt testified to at the hearing, the trial

court ordered that the parties be responsible for that debt as follows.

 {¶31} As to the Capital One Mastercard (#2918), the trial court found that

both parties used that card for various expenses during the marriage. The trial court

found that the account had a balance of $12,004.20 as of the date of marriage and a

balance of $12,566.23 as of the date the divorce was filed, making the balance on

that account $562.03 higher at the time Patrick filed for divorce than the balance

had been at the time of the marriage. The trial court ordered that the parties equally

split responsibility for that $562.03, with each party being responsible for paying

$281.02 on that debt. The trial court further ordered that the $281.02 to be paid by

Ashley toward that credit card debt be deducted from the $11,620.28 that she was

awarded from Patrick's personal checking account.

 {¶32} As to the other Capital One credit card (#3221), the trial court found

that there was a $5,426.23 balance on that account at the time of the marriage, and

a $4095.60 balance at the time the divorce action was filed. The trial court ordered

that there would be no division of that debt and ordered that Patrick take full

responsibility for any indebtedness on that account.

 -13-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 {¶33} With regard to the Discover credit card (#3006), the trial court found

that there was a $9,404.99 balance on that account at the time of the marriage, and

a $9,712.45 balance at the time the complaint for divorce was filed. The trial court

noted that Patrick testified that he had opened that account for Ashley's use and

there was a zero balance on the account when opened. The trial court therefore

ordered that Ashley be responsible for paying the $9,712.45 balance that was on the

Discover card account as of the date the divorce action was filed. The trial court

further ordered that Ashley's obligation to pay the $9,712.45 Discover card debt be

deducted from the $11,620.28 she was awarded from Patrick's personal checking

account. Thus, offsetting the $281.02 debt that Ashley was ordered to pay on the

Capital One Mastercard #2918 and the $9,712.45 that she was ordered to pay on the

Discover card account, the trial court ordered that Ashley's final payout from

Patrick's personal checking account be $1,626.91.

 {¶34} Finally, the trial court ordered that no spousal support would be

awarded to Ashley, and the court denied Ashley's request that Patrick be ordered to

pay a portion of her divorce-related attorneys' fees.

 Assignments of Error on Appeal

 {¶35} In this appeal of the trial court's decision, Ashley raises four

assignments of error for our review.

 -14-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 First Assignment of Error

 The trial court committed reversible error by ordering appellant
 to pay the full balance on appellee's Discover card at the date of
 filing, as the undisputed evidence demonstrates that this debt was
 appellee's sole separate, pre-marital debt obligation acquired
 before the date of marriage.

 Second Assignment of Error

 The trial court committed reversible error by failing to distribute
 to appellant one-half of the marital bank account and, instead,
 requiring an automatic off-set for appellant to pay one-half of
 appellee's pre-marital credit card debt obligation while at the
 same time allowing appellee to continue to make monthly
 payments on said debt obligation.

 Third Assignment of Error

 The trial court committed reversible error by failing to
 compensate appellant for her undisputed equity interest in the
 marital vehicle.

 Fourth Assignment of Error

 The trial court committed reversible error by denying spousal
 support and failing to consider relevant statutory factors.

 First Assignment of Error

 {¶36} In the first assignment of error, Ashley asserts that the trial court erred

in ordering that Ashley be responsible for the $9,712.45 Discover credit card

account balance as of the filing date of the divorce. Specifically, Ashley argues that

the trial court improperly determined that the debt accrued on the Discover card

account was marital debt for which Ashley bears responsibility. In support of that

 -15-
 Case No. 7-24-09

assertion, Ashley claims that the Discover credit card debt was a gift to her from

Patrick and that the debt was incurred by Patrick prior to the marriage.

 {¶37} A trial court's decision allocating marital property and debt will not

be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Jackson, 2008-Ohio-1482, ¶

15 (3d Dist.), citing Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 131 (1989). An abuse

of discretion is more than a mere error; it implies that the court's attitude is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d

217, 219 (1983).

 {¶38} "‘In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, a

reviewing court should not examine the valuation and division of a

particular marital asset or liability in isolation.'" Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624,

¶ 27 (3d Dist.), quoting Harris v. Harris, 2004-Ohio-683, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.). "‘The

reviewing court must, instead, view the property division under the totality of the

circumstances to determine whether the property division reflects an unreasonable,

arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the domestic relations court.'" Id.

 R.C. 3105.171(B) provides:

 In divorce proceedings, the court shall * * * determine what
 constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. In
 either case, upon making such a determination, the court shall divide
 the marital and separate property equitably between the spouses, in
 accordance with this section. For purposes of this section, the court
 has jurisdiction over all property, excluding the social security
 benefits of a spouse other than as set forth in division (F)(9) of this
 section, in which one or both spouses have an interest.

 -16-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 {¶39} "Although Ohio's divorce statutes do not specifically

articulate debt as an element of marital and separate property, the rules

concerning marital assets are usually applied to marital and separate debt as

well." Schwarck v. Schwarck, 2012-Ohio-3902, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.), citing Vonderhaar–

Ketron v. Ketron, 2010-Ohio-6593, ¶ 34 (5th Dist.). "The property to be divided in

a divorce proceeding includes not only the assets owned by the parties but also

any debts incurred by the parties." Forman v. Forman, 2014-Ohio-3545, ¶ 31 (3d

Dist.), citing Marrero v. Marrero, 2002-Ohio-4862, ¶ 43 (9th Dist.).

 {¶40} A trial court's characterization of property or debt as separate or

marital is a mixed question of law and fact, which must be supported by sufficient

credible evidence. Schwarck, supra, at ¶ 19, citing Kelly v. Kelly, 111 Ohio App.3d

641, 642 (1996). "The party seeking to establish a debt as separate rather than

marital bears the burden of proving this to the trial court by a preponderance of the

evidence." Schwarck, at ¶ 21, citing Vergitz v. Vergitz, 2007-Ohio-1395, ¶ 12 (7th

Dist.).

 {¶41} Finally, we note that evidence that one spouse established certain

credit card accounts, or that the accounts were held solely in one spouse's name,

does not preclude a finding that the debt incurred on such accounts is marital debt.

See, e.g., Rupert v. Rupert, 2000 WL 1929874 (3d Dist. Dec. 22, 2000); Guenther

v. Guenther, 2002-Ohio-376 (12th Dist.).

 -17-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 {¶42} In the instant case, given the trial court's findings, overall analysis,

and disposition of the various credit card debts at issue, the trial court appears to

have concluded that the Discover credit card debt was either a separate premarital

debt of Ashley's or a marital debt for which Ashley also bears responsibility, or

possibly both. Either of those determinations is more than adequately supported by

the record, particularly the evidence establishing that the Discover credit card

account was opened by Patrick for Ashley's use at her request, and the fact that she

was primarily responsible for the purchases charged to that card, both prior to and

during the marriage. Moreover, our review of the trial court's overall disposition of

the assets and debt at issue in this case reflects that that disposition was equitable

under the totality of the circumstances established by the evidence.

 {¶43} We also reject Ashley's claim that the evidence proved that Patrick

intended the Discover credit card debt, or his payment thereon, to be a gift to Ashley.

 {¶44} "The classification of property as a loan or a gift is a factual

determination" reviewed under a manifest weight standard of review. Downing v.

Downing, 2014-Ohio-4725, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.), citing Johnson v. Johnson, 1999 WL

760978 (12th Dist. Sept. 27, 1999); and Bertsch v. Bertsch, 1997 WL 760951 (9th

Dist. Nov. 19, 1997).

 {¶45} In this case, Patrick testified that he initially opened the Capital One

credit cards and the Discover card in 2022 to help Ashley because she was struggling

financially at that time. He testified that, after she moved in with him, he believed

 -18-
 Case No. 7-24-09

that assisting Ashley with some of her expenses would help tide her over until she

was working again and financially stable. Patrick testified that Ashley specifically

requested that he open the Discover card account for her to use during that time, and

that Ashley kept promising him that she would go back to work and help contribute

financially.

 {¶46} Thus, to the extent that the evidence demonstrated a willingness on

Patrick's part to pay for some of Ashley's expenses without reimbursement, his

testimony also firmly established that his willingness to do so was only intended as

a very temporary measure. The evidence presented falls short of establishing that

Patrick intended that the debt incurred as a result of Ashley's extensive use of the

credit cards, and the Discover card in particular, to be a gift for which she bore no

responsibility to repay. Accordingly, the trial court's failure to adopt Ashley's gift

theory at trial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

 {¶47} In summary as to the first assignment of error, after comparing the

marital assets and debts assigned to the parties in light of the evidence presented at

the divorce hearing, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination

regarding the Discover credit card debt.

 {¶48} The first assignment of error is overruled.

 Second Assignment of Error

 {¶49} In the second assignment of error, Ashley asserts that the trial court

erred in ordering that Ashley's award of $11,620.28 in funds from Patrick's

 -19-
 Case No. 7-24-09

personal checking account be reduced, or offset, by the $9,712.45 amount that she

was ordered to pay on the Discover credit card debt. Ashley cites to no case law in

support of her claim that the court-ordered offset was legally erroneous; rather,

Ashley argues merely that the offset ordered by the trial court was "unreasonable".

 {¶50} "Trial courts have ‘broad discretion to determine what property

division is equitable in a divorce proceeding.'" Collins v. Collins, 2011-Ohio-2339,

¶ 28 (3d Dist.), quoting Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, paragraph two of the

syllabus (1981). Again, an abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it

implies that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or

capricious. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

 {¶51} Contrary to Ashley's claim here, we find that the offset ordered by the

trial court was reasonable. Offsetting Ashley's award from the checking account

funds by the amount of her Discover credit card debt obligation was a practical

means to effectuate the overall financial settlement ordered by the trial court and

ensure that Ashley not shirk her responsibility to pay the credit card debt. That is

particularly true given that the record is replete with examples of dishonorable

conduct on Ashley's part relating to finances during the pendency of the divorce

proceeding.

 {¶52} The second assignment of error is overruled.

 -20-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 Third Assignment of Error

 {¶53} In the third assignment of error, Ashley asserts that the trial court erred

in failing to compensate her for a portion of the equity in Patrick's Cadillac

Escalade. Specifically, Ashley claims that she is entitled to a share of the equity in

that vehicle that accrued during the course of the marriage. Ashley argues that

Patrick made payments of approximately $700.00 per month on the Escalade while

the parties were married and, therefore, she should have been awarded one-half of

the total sum paid by Patrick on the Escalade during the marriage.

 {¶54} The process of fashioning an equitable division of marital property

will generally require a trial court to assign or adopt valuations for marital assets.

Gilsdorf v. Gilsdorf, 2014-Ohio-5000, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.). "The valuation of property in

a divorce case is a question of fact." Schwarck v. Schwarck, 2012-Ohio-3902, ¶ 27

(3d Dist.). "Accordingly, a trial court's decision pertaining to the valuation of

property will be reviewed under a manifest weight of the evidence standard and will

not be reversed so long as it is supported by some competent and credible evidence."

Id. "If the parties to the divorce submit evidence in support of conflicting

valuations, the trial court ‘may believe all, part, or none of any witness's

testimony.'" Mousa v. Saad, 2019-Ohio-742, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.), quoting Huelskamp v.

Huelskamp. 2009-Ohio-6864, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.). Because the trial court is in the best

position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, "[a] reviewing court should be

 -21-
 Case No. 7-24-09

guided by a presumption that the findings of a trial court are correct[.]" DeWitt v.

DeWitt, 2003-Ohio-851, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.).

 {¶55} Finally, we note that "separate property" is defined by R.C.

3105.171(A)(6)(a), and includes any real or personal property, or any interest in

such, that was acquired by one spouse prior to the date of the marriage. Neville v.

Neville, 2009–Ohio–3817, ¶ 11. The commingling of separate property with other

property does not necessarily destroy the identity of the separate property, except

when the separate property is not traceable. R.C. 3105.171(A)(6)(b). The general

rule with regard to separate property is that the trial court must disburse a spouse's

separate property to that spouse. R.C. 3105.171(D). Nevertheless, the trial court

still has broad discretion in dividing property equitably in a divorce. Gilleo v. Gilleo,

2010-Ohio-5191, ¶ 21, citing Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 319 (1982).

 {¶56} In the instant case, the evidence introduced at the hearing established

that Patrick owns a Cadillac Escalade, which he purchased in July of 2020. Patrick

financed the purchase of the Escalade and, at the time of the divorce hearing, he was

still making payments on that vehicle in the amount of approximately $700.00 per

month. Patrick testified that he still owed around $14,000.00 on the Escalade and,

further, that the Escalade needed about $8,000.00 in repair work, based on an

estimate he had received. Ashley contributed no funds toward the payments on the

Escalade, during the marriage or otherwise. No specific evidence as to the current

value of the Escalade was introduced at the hearing by either party but Patrick

 -22-
 Case No. 7-24-09

testified that, based on vehicle's current value, he was "upside down" on that

vehicle, as he owed more on the vehicle than it was worth.

 {¶57} Based on the record before us, Ashley's claim regarding the Escalade

lacks merit. The Escalade was purchased by Patrick well before he met Ashley and,

therefore, his interest in that vehicle would primarily constitute separate property to

which Ashley has no claim, particularly given the extremely short duration of the

marriage. More importantly, Ashley's definition of "equity" with regard to the

vehicle is erroneous, as the total sum paid by Patrick on the Escalade during the

marriage, or even prior thereto, does not necessarily equate to having him having

any equity in that vehicle. On the contrary, the evidence at the hearing reflected

that Patrick owed more on the Escalade than it was currently worth, meaning he had

no equity at all in the vehicle at that time.

 {¶58} The third assignment of error is overruled.

 Fourth Assignment of Error

 {¶59} In the fourth assignment of error, Ashley asserts that the trial court

erred in failing to order Patrick to pay spousal support.

 {¶60} Trial courts have broad discretion concerning an award of spousal

support. Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020-Ohio-4881, ¶ 69 (3d Dist.).

Therefore, a trial court's decision related to spousal support will not be reversed

absent an abuse of discretion. Reed v. Reed, 2023-Ohio-756, ¶ 33 (3d Dist.).

 -23-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 {¶61} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.

"‘[S]pousal support' means any payment or payments to be made to a spouse or

former spouse, or to a third party for the benefit of a spouse or a former spouse, that

is both for sustenance and for support of the spouse or former spouse." R.C.

3105.18(A). "In divorce * * * proceedings, upon the request of either party and

after the court determines the division or disbursement of property * * *, the court

of common pleas may award reasonable spousal support to either party." R.C.

3105.18(B). Additionally, "[d]uring the pendency of any divorce * * * the court

may award reasonable temporary spousal support to either party." Id.

 {¶62} R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) contains a list of factors to be considered by a

court in determining whether spousal support should be ordered, and provides:

 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;

 -24-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 (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;

 (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.

 {¶63} In the instant case, the trial court's judgment entry of divorce contains

the following findings and decision regarding spousal support:

 In Defendant's Answer to the Divorce Complaint filed December 8,
 2023, Defendant asked for temporary Spousal Support. During the
 trial, Defendant testified that she wants Spousal Support at least until
 the end of July 2024 so she can get on her feet and start over, and
 stated she would like $3,000.00 per month. In closing arguments,
 Defendant's attorney asked that Plaintiff pay Defendant's expenses

 -25-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 (rent, utilities, medical bills and car lease) through to the end of July
 * * *.

 The Court in a temporary Order filed-stamped April 26, 2024, and
 Nunc Pro Tunc file-stamped April 29, 2024, ordered that Defendant
 vacate the marital rental home by May 31, 2024, and that Plaintiff
 could take re-possession on June 1, 2024. It also was ordered that
 Plaintiff pay the above named expenses on behalf of Defendant
 through to May 31, 2024. Plaintiff had been paying all of these
 expenses in addition to making all of the payments of the credit cards
 throughout the pendency of this divorce matter.

 Defendant testified that she needed Plaintiff to pay these bills because
 she did not work during the marriage. At various times throughout
 her testimony, Defendant gave different reasons as to why she was not
 employed: Plaintiff told her she did not have to work so she could
 attend basketball games and events for her son; Plaintiff told her she
 did not have to be employed so she could work through her grief of
 losing a child; she could not find a job in northwest Ohio; she has a
 hormone imbalance; she has anxiety.

 However, Defendant also testified that prior to the marriage she had
 been making $70,000 at her job in Dayton. She also testified that she
 plans to go into business with a friend and they are looking for a
 building in Perrysburg or Sylvania. She testified that she has her
 degree in nursing and was getting ready to take her board testing.
 Plaintiff paid the $200 test fee for Defendant in January 2023, but
 Defendant said she did not take the test right away. By postponing
 taking the test, she has essentially prolonged her unemployment. She
 testified that she plans to work as a registered nurse once she passes
 her testing.

 The parties had a very short-term marriage. They were married May
 23, 2023, and Plaintiff filed for divorce six months later on December
 5, 2023. Defendant has paid support from December 5, 2023 to May
 2024, a period of 6 months which is almost the length of the duration
 of the marriage. Defendant had good jobs prior to the marriage and is
 looking into starting a business, per her testimony, and has a nursing
 degree. The question before the Court is would Defendant have been
 working if the parties had not married or Plaintiff had told her she did
 not have to work during that period of time in their marriage. It is

 -26-
 Case No. 7-24-09

 apparent from the testimony that she only quit her job in Dayton in
 order to move to northwest Ohio due to her relationship with Plaintiff.

 Therefore, the Court awards no further spousal support to Defendant.
 Plaintiff's monthly payments towards the marital rental property, and
 towards Defendant's medical bills, car and monthly support terminate
 as of May 31, 2024.

(8/5/24 Judgment Entry, Docket No. 40).

 {¶64} While the trial court did not specifically cite to R.C. 3105.18 in its

judgment entry, the court's analysis of the spousal support issue reflects that the

court's denial of Ashley's request for spousal support was nevertheless based upon

an apparent consideration of the relevant factors set forth in the statute.

 {¶65} More importantly, our own review of the record reflects competent,

credible evidence supporting the conclusion that Ashley, based on both her

education and professional experience, is readily employable, able to support

herself, and that she voluntarily opted to be unemployed for the duration of the

marriage, including the time period during which the divorce action was pending.

The record also establishes that Ashley had previously earned an income more than

adequate to provide for her basic needs, and that her earning potential had not

materially diminished during the marriage. Finally, the marriage was of extremely

brief duration. Those facts, along with the fact that Patrick paid over $18,000.00 to

Ashley for spousal support and living expenses during the eight months that the

divorce was pending, which was a timeframe longer than the duration of the

 -27-
 Case No. 7-24-09

marriage itself, lead us to conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Ashley's request for additional spousal support.

 {¶66} The fourth assignment of error is overruled.

 Conclusion

 {¶67} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant, Ashley

Nonnenman, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Henry

County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.

 Judgment affirmed

MILLER and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

/jlm

 -28-