CourtListener opinion 9958396

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[Cite as Ehrmantrout v. Ehrmantrout, 2024-Ohio-1328.]

 COURT OF APPEALS
 TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 BRIAN EHRMANTROUT JUDGES:
 Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
 -vs-
 Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021
 KATE EHRMANTROUT

 Defendant-Appellant OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court
 of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
 Division, Case No. 2021 TC 09 0295

 JUDGMENT: Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; and
 Remanded

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 5, 2024

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

 DAVID C. HIPP DAN GUINN
 P.O. Box 90 232 W. Third Street
 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 Dover, Ohio 44622
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 2

Hoffman, P.J.
 {¶1} Defendant-appellant Kate E. Ehrmantrout ("Wife") appeals the March 3,

2023 Judgment Entry entered by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas,

Domestic Relations Division, which granted Wife and plaintiff-appellee Brian V.

Ehrmantrout ("Husband") a divorce, divided the parties' marital debts and assets, and

allocated their parental rights and responsibilities.

 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

 {¶2} Husband and Wife were married on August 29, 2009, in Wooster, Ohio.

The parties have three (3) minor children, one of whom was born prior to the marriage.

Paternity was established by birth certificate. The other two (2) children were born during

the marriage. The parties separated in September, 2018.

 {¶3} On September 17, 2021, Husband filed a Complaint for Divorce. Wife filed

a pro se Answer on October 21, 2021.1 Via Magistrate's Order filed October 25, 2021,

the magistrate named Wife the temporary residential parent and legal custodian of the

children, granted Husband standard parenting time, ordered the parties to file proposed

child support calculations, and, in lieu of temporary spousal support, ordered Husband to

pay all outstanding medical bills of the parties and make the monthly payments on the

Bank of America credit card. After the child support computation worksheet was filed, the

magistrate ordered Husband to pay child support in accordance with the worksheet.

 {¶4} The parties engaged in mediation, but were unable to reach an agreement.

On July 13, 2022, after learning about an incident of domestic violence between Wife and

her paramour, Husband filed a motion requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem

1 Attorney Dan Guinn filed a Note of Appearance on behalf of Wife on January 13, 2022.
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 3

("GAL") for the children on July 13, 2022. The trial court appointed Attorney Monica

DeRamus as GAL for the children. Husband was ordered to pay the initial deposit of

$1,500.00, to the GAL.

 {¶5} The trial court conducted a final hearing on October 13, 2022.

 {¶6} Husband began his case-in-chief by calling Wife on cross-examination.

Wife testified she is employed with Farmers National Bank as a bank teller and earns

$13.95/hour. Wife resides with the children in a home owned by her parents. With

respect to the Bank of America credit card, Wife indicated the account was in her name

only and the account was currently over the credit limit of $16,000. Wife stated the Bank

of America credit card was opened around 2013, when the parties resided in Florida.

Wife acknowledged she continued to use the Bank of America credit card after the parties

separated, but could not provide an estimate of how much of the $16,000 debt was

incurred after the separation. Wife explained she used the Bank of America credit card

for daily living expenses for herself and the children, including using it to pay bills and to

purchase clothing.

 {¶7} With respect to the parties' other credit cards, Wife testified the balance on

the Capital One Walmart credit card was approximately $4200.00, the balance on the Bell

credit card was $45.00, and the balance on the Discover Card was approximately

$9,730.00. Wife continued to use the Capital One Walmart credit card, the Bell credit

card, and the Discover Card after the parties' separation. Other than a Kohl's credit card,

which was opened in 2011, Wife indicated all of the credit cards were opened when the

parties lived in Florida and were in her name only.
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 4

 {¶8} Wife testified she had been dating an individual by the name of Christopher

Durachinski, but stopped seeing him after he was arrested in February, 2022, "[b]ecause

he was violent towards me." Transcript of Oct. 13, 2022 Proceedings at p. 10. Wife

obtained a civil protection order ("CPO") after the incident. Wife was subpoenaed to

appear at Durachinski's trial on the charges, but refused to appear to testify against him,

explaining, "I did not appear, but I got a CPO and after I got the CPO I told victim

assistance that I couldn't handle it anymore, it was emotionally draining. So, I got what I

needed to get, and I left it at that." Id. at p. 11. When asked if her children were present

during the incident, Wife stated they were upstairs. Wife initially could not recall if there

were other instances of physical confrontations with Durachinski, but then replied,

"Physically no, maybe words." Id. Wife stated she and Durachinski were in a relationship

less than a year.

 {¶9} Wife was asked about the parties' joint bank account with Bank of America.

Counsel for Husband introduced Plaintiff's Exhibit A, which was a Bank of America bank

statement. The statement showed the following transfers from the account to

Durachinski: August 31, 2021, for $999.98; August 31, 2021, for $1,300.00; September

1, 2021, for $700.00; and September 2, 2021, for $1,500.00. Wife stated she did not owe

any money to Durachinski. Wife could not recall if the money was from the parties' joint

tax refund. Wife stated she "[m]ost definitely" made the transfers to Durachinski. Id. at p.

14. Wife explained she transferred the money to Durachinski so she could open her own

separate account. Wife added Husband also was taking money out of the Bank of

America account, and, as a result, the account fell below the required minimum and was

assessed monthly maintenance fees, which she paid. Wife could not recall if Husband
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 5

had his paychecks deposited into the Bank of America account after the parties'

separation. Wife indicated she deposited the Federal stimulus checks issued to herself,

Husband, and the children into the joint bank account, but did not know if Husband

withdrew any of those funds.

 {¶10} Husband testified he was employed full-time as a line operator for ProVia,

and earns $17.50/hour. Husband maintains health insurance for himself and the children

through his employer. With respect to the children, Husband stated he sees the two older

children on a regular schedule. However, Husband noted his parenting time with the

parties' youngest child, who has cerebral palsy and is also epileptic, was irregular.

Husband indicated the youngest child has significant needs, but he was able to meet all

of her needs and provide appropriate care. Husband detailed his parenting time with the

children and discussed the activities in which the older two children are involved.

Husband testified the older two children told him about the domestic violence between

Wife and Durachinski and Durachinski's arrest. The two older children were present

during the altercation. Husband contacted Wayne County Sheriff's Office, which

conducted a welfare check. Husband recalled, when he spoke to Wife that evening, her

speech was slurred and she was under the influence of alcohol. Husband stated Wife

had an on-going problem with alcohol.

 {¶11} With respect to the Bank of America bank account, Husband testified while

the parties were still together his paycheck, Wife's paycheck, and the youngest child's

social security disability check were deposited into the account. Husband noted his

paycheck continued to be deposited into the Bank of America bank account for a period

of time after the parties separated. Husband stated the last time he used the bank
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 6

account on a regular basis was in 2019. When Husband asked Wife about the multiple

transfers to Durachinski, Wife told him she was afraid he (Husband) would take the

money. Husband withdrew $200.00, at some point, which drained the account. Husband

indicated Wife wrote him a check for the federal stimulus checks issued to him. With

respect to the credit cards, Husband indicated he did not use any of the credit cards after

the parties' separation in 2018.

 {¶12} On cross-examination, Husband stated he worked at Pepsi Beverage

Company until October, 2021, and was earning approximately $19.75/hour. Husband

acknowledged although he was ordered to pay the Bank of America credit card, he only

made two payments on the account. Husband testified he has been consistent in paying

with his child support obligation.

 {¶13} On direct, Wife indicated she would like to be restored to her former name

of "Jones." Wife explained she and Husband do not own any real property and they had

previously divided their personal property. Wife wished to keep the Bank of America bank

account and a Farmers National Bank account, both of which were in her name only. The

parties have joint checking and joint savings accounts with Bank of America. The joint

savings account was charged a monthly maintenance fee which, according to Wife,

began after Husband withdrew $200.00, and brought the account below the required

balance. Wife did not have a retirement account. Husband had a retirement account

through his former employer, Pepsi Beverage Company. Wife believed she was entitled

to a portion of any current 401(k) Husband might have. Wife wanted Husband to pay the

balances on the Bank of America credit card and the Discover Card, as well as the

outstanding medical bills.
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 7

 {¶14} Wife was unable to work full-time due to the needs of the parties' youngest

child. Wife expressed her desire to be named the legal custodian and residential parent

of the parties' children. Wife did not feel comfortable with the youngest child being at

Husband's residence multiple nights in a row, adding "[e]very time [the child] is over there

something happens." Id. at p. 58. Wife discussed the older two children, their extra-

curricular activities, and their individual educational needs. Wife made clear she paid for

all of the children's extra-curricular activities. Wife detailed the daily care she provides to

the youngest child, which includes tube feeding the child five times per day and giving her

numerous prescription medications each day. Wife asserted Husband did not attend

medical or school appointments even though she advised him of the same.

 {¶15} With respect to the money transferred to Durachinski, Wife explained she

transferred the money to him in order to open a bank account in her name only. Wife

also claimed Husband was attempting to blackmail her into signing a dissolution, which

she did not believe was equitable, and she believed he would withdraw the money from

the joint account. Wife indicated Durachinski transferred the money back to her and she

used it to pay bills. Wife adamantly denied the money went to Durachinski.

 {¶16} On cross-examination, Wife admitted she was charged with DUI in January,

2020. Wife also admitted she filed a tax return, claiming all three children, despite a court

order prohibiting her from doing so. Wife received a tax refund of $15,000.00, which she

used for rent, gas, car repairs, extra-curricular activities, and the revolving balances on

the credit cards.

 {¶17} At the close of evidence, the trial court advised the parties they could submit

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, if desired. The parties requested the
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 8

trial court conduct an in-camera interview with the two older children in the presence of

the GAL. The interview was scheduled for November 15, 2022.

 {¶18} Wife filed Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law on November 7,

2022. Husband filed his Final Argument as well as his Proposed Judgment Entry on

November 14, 2022. Wife filed a response to Husband's Final Argument on December

30, 2022. On January 12, 2023, the GAL filed a Guardian ad Litem's Notice of Filing Final

Bill, showing an outstanding balance of $352.50, and noting each party was responsible

for $176.25. Via Judgment/Entry filed the same day, the parties were ordered to pay the

GAL fees as follows: Husband - $176.25; and Wife - $176.25.

 {¶19} Via Judgment Entry filed March 3, 2023, the trial court granted the parties

a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility and living separate and apart for more than

one (1) year. The trial court ordered Husband to make all monthly payments on the Bank

of America credit card he had been previously ordered to make, and Wife be responsible

for the remaining balance. With respect to the parties' additional revolving credit

cards/accounts, the trial court held the parties responsible for their respective debt. The

trial court found an award of spousal support was not appropriate as Wife engaged in

"secretive and prejudicial financial misconduct." March 3, 2023 Judgment Entry at p. 8.

The trial court ordered the parties to pay the GAL expenses 65% Husband/35% Wife.

The trial court ordered Husband's pension benefits from ProVia be divided by QDRO, and

ordered Wife to pay for an evaluation and preparation of the QDRO. The trial court named

Mother the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties' youngest child, and

Husband the legal custodian and residential parent of the two older children. The trial

court did not award child support, but ordered the parties' split the cost of the children's
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 9

activities 65% Husband/35% Wife. The trial court divided court costs equally between

Husband and Wife.

 {¶20} It is from this judgment entry Wife appeals, raising the following

assignments of error:

 I. THE COURT ERRED WITH REGARDS TO THE ALLOCATION

 OF THE BANK OF AMERICA CREDIT CARD DEBT.

 II. THE COURT ERRED WITH REGARDS [TO] THE ALLOCATION

 OF DEBTS OTHER THAN THE BANK OF AMERICA CREDIT CARD.

 III. THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE

 APPELLANT COMMITTED FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT.

 IV. THE COURT ERRED IN NOT RESTORING THE APPELLANT

 TO HER FORMER NAME.

 V. THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE PARTIES

 SHOULD SPLIT THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES.

 VI. THE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE APPELLANT TO PAY

 THE ENTIRE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE

 QDRO TO DIVIDE THE MARITAL PORTION OF THE APPELLEE'S

 PENSION

 VII. THE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING BOTH PARTIES TO PAY

 THE COURT COSTS EQUALLY.
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 10

 I

 {¶21} In her first assignment of error, Wife submits the trial court erred and abused

its discretion in allocating the entire Bank of America credit card to her.

 {¶22} 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. R.C. 3105.171(B).

 {¶23} "Although the allocation of debt is not specifically addressed by the statute,

the division of property also includes marital debt." Yousef v. Iskander, 9th Dist. Summit

No. 29703, 2021-Ohio-3322, ¶ 6. (Citations omitted); See, also, Montgomery v.

Montgomery, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2018-CA-16, 2019-Ohio-1803, ¶ 24 (Debts, like assets,

are considered property.). Consequently, orders assigning debt to one party or another

are part of the property division. Montgomery v. Montgomery, supra; Kraft v. Kraft, 2d

Dist. Montgomery No. 25982, 2014-Ohio-4852, ¶ 41 ("Since the court, pursuant to R.C.

3105.171(F)(2), must consider both the parties' assets and liabilities, ‘an equitable

division of marital property necessarily implicates an equitable division of marital debt.' ").
 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 11

 {¶24} "A trial court's allocation of marital debt will not be reversed absent an abuse

of discretion." Vaughn v. Vaughn, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2007-02-021, 2007-Ohio-

6569, ¶ 41. "We may modify or reverse the court's decision only for abuse of discretion."

Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 2019-Ohio-2035, 136 N.E.3d 966, ¶ 13, citing Berish v. Berish,

69 Ohio St.2d 318, 319, 432 N.E.2d 183 (1982). An abuse of discretion "implies that the

court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore,

5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

 {¶25} Specifically, Wife contends the trial court's finding "most of the $16,000.00

balance for [the Bank of America credit card] this was incurred by the Wife after the

separation" was erroneous. Brief of Appellant at p. 20. Wife continues:

 The problem is that the evidence did not show that. No evidence or

 testimony was shown which proved what the balance for this was prior to

 the parties' separation. Moreover, no evidence was shown with regards to

 what balance the Wife charged on the credit card. Thus, there was no way

 for the Court to determine this and it abused its discretion in making that

 finding in Paragraph 14.2

 Id.

2 Paragraph 14 provides: \The parties also have a Bank of America credit card in both their names when