[Cite as Boyden v. Boyden, 2012-Ohio-1930.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOEL M. BOYDEN JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. -vs- Case No. 11CAF110109 SHERYL MARIE BOYDEN
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Realtions Division, Case No. 07 DR A 08 0355
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 18, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JOEL R. CAMPBELL LEEANN MASSUCCI Strip, Hoppers, Leithart, McGrath KENNETH R. KLINE & Terlecky Co., LPA Massucci & Kline LLC 575 South Third Street 250 Civil Center Drive, Ste. 630 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Joel M. Boyden (“Husband”) appeals the October 26,
2011 Judgment Entry entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which
sustained in part and overruled in part the objections to the magistrate’s June 7, 2010
decision filed by Defendant-appellee Sheryl Marie Boyden (“Wife”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Husband and Wife were married on March 14, 2005. One child was born
as issue of said union, to wit: A.M.B. (dob 9/13/05). Husband filed a Complaint for
Divorce on August 8, 2007. Wife filed an Answer and Counterclaim on September 6,
2007. Wife moved out of the marital residence on October 7, 2007.
{¶3} The trial court issued temporary orders which required Husband to pay
Wife’s monthly car payments due on a Discover credit card as well as the minor child’s
monthly preschool costs. The matter came on for trial before the magistrate on October
14, 2008.
{¶4} Via Decision filed June 7, 2010, the magistrate ordered the parties be
granted a divorce. The magistrate found the parties had reached an agreement settling
“all financial and property issues” pursuant to which Husband would pay Wife “$65,000
as satisfaction of an equitable distribution of marital assets and debts.” Magistrate’s
June 7, 2010 Decision at para. 25. The magistrate also found, prior to the marriage,
Wife owned real property located at 396 Shandon Court, Powell, Ohio, which became
rental property after the marriage. Sometime in April or May, 2008, the parties
discovered the exiting tenants had “trashed” the residence. Husband assisted in the
cleaning which included trash removal, carpet removal, drywall repair, and painting as Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 3
well as other general repairs. On May 30, 2008, Husband gave Wife $2000 to use
toward the mortgage and/or utilities. Husband had never paid Wife any other funds for
the property.
{¶5} The magistrate awarded Husband two of the three parcels of real property
owned by the parties and awarded the Wife the 396 Shandon Court property. After
dividing the parties’ assets and debt, the magistrate ordered Husband pay Wife “the
sum of $65,000.00 to complete the equitable distribution of tangible and intangible
property.” The magistrate did not make an award of spousal support to either party, but
ordered Husband to pay child support in the amount of $1,347.28/month plus
processing fees. The magistrate issued a shared parenting plan. The magistrate
further ordered Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees.
{¶6} Husband filed objections to the magistrate’s decision relative to the award
of attorney fees; the cash property award rather than the QDRO to which the parties
had agreed; his continued payment of Wife’s automobile debt; and the shared parenting
plan. Wife filed a memorandum contra. The parties worked with the guardian ad litem
and resolved the shared parenting plan issues. An Agreed Shared Parenting Order was
filed February 4, 2011.
{¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed October 26, 2011, the trial court sustained in part
and overruled in part Husband’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court
also granted the parties a divorce and issued orders generally consistent with the
magistrate’s decision.
{¶8} It is from this judgment entry Husband appeals, raising the following
assignments of error: Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 4
{¶9} “I. IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ERROR FOR THE TRIAL
COURT TO IGNORE THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE PARTIES WITH AN
ORDER OF THE CONTINUATION OF DEBT PAYMENTS BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DECREE OF DIVORCE.
{¶10} “II. IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ERROR FOR THE TRIAL
COURT TO IGNORE THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE PARTIES WITH AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.”
I
{¶11} In his first assignment of error, Husband contends the trial court abused its
discretion and erred in ordering him to continue to pay Wife’s debt after the effective
date of the divorce decree thereby ignoring the parties’ settlement agreement.
{¶12} Our standard of reviewing decisions of a domestic relations court is
generally the abuse of discretion standard. Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142.
The term abuse of discretion implies the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable. Id. at 219. When applying the abuse of discretion standard, this Court
may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med.
Board, (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621.
{¶13} The parties spend a good portion of their respective briefs arguing the
scope of the settlement agreement. Husband posits the $65,000 lump sum payment
included Wife’s attorney fees as well as Wife’s car payments; therefore, the trial court
should have credited him with the monies he paid after the effective date of the decree,
to wit: October 14, 2008. Wife, on the other hand, submits the agreement was informal
and was intended only as a partial settlement of some of the parties’ financial issues. Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 5
However, in a letter dated May 20, 2008, written in response to a May 19, 2008
correspondence from Husband’s counsel, Attorney Massucci, counsel for Wife,
indicated Wife was in agreement with Husband paying her “$65,000.00 in satisfaction of
all financial and property issues” except for pending child and spousal support issues.
{¶14} A determination of whether the parties’ agreement was a complete or
partial settlement of the financial issues is not dispositive of the issue sub judice.
Husband testified, under the parties’ agreement, Wife would take responsibility for her
car payments once he paid her the lump sum amount of $65,000. Wife similarly
testified she presumed Husband would not be responsible for the car payments
following the end of the divorce. As of the filing of the October 26, 2011 Judgment
Entry, over three years after the parties reached the agreement, Husband still had not
paid Wife any of the settlement monies. By failing to pay the agreed settlement amount,
Husband became the architect of his own demise. Husband could have, at any time,
paid Wife the $65,000.00 and ended his obligation to pay Wife’s car debt.
{¶15} Husband’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II
{¶16} In his second assignment of error, Husband contends the trial court
abused its discretion and erred in awarding attorney fees to Wife thereby ignoring the
parties’ settlement agreement.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Boyden v. Boyden, 2012-Ohio-1930.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOEL M. BOYDEN JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. -vs- Case No. 11CAF110109 SHERYL MARIE BOYDEN
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Realtions Division, Case No. 07 DR A 08 0355
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 18, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JOEL R. CAMPBELL LEEANN MASSUCCI Strip, Hoppers, Leithart, McGrath KENNETH R. KLINE & Terlecky Co., LPA Massucci & Kline LLC 575 South Third Street 250 Civil Center Drive, Ste. 630 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Joel M. Boyden (“Husband”) appeals the October 26,
2011 Judgment Entry entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which
sustained in part and overruled in part the objections to the magistrate’s June 7, 2010
decision filed by Defendant-appellee Sheryl Marie Boyden (“Wife”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Husband and Wife were married on March 14, 2005. One child was born
as issue of said union, to wit: A.M.B. (dob 9/13/05). Husband filed a Complaint for
Divorce on August 8, 2007. Wife filed an Answer and Counterclaim on September 6,
2007. Wife moved out of the marital residence on October 7, 2007.
{¶3} The trial court issued temporary orders which required Husband to pay
Wife’s monthly car payments due on a Discover credit card as well as the minor child’s
monthly preschool costs. The matter came on for trial before the magistrate on October
14, 2008.
{¶4} Via Decision filed June 7, 2010, the magistrate ordered the parties be
granted a divorce. The magistrate found the parties had reached an agreement settling
“all financial and property issues” pursuant to which Husband would pay Wife “$65,000
as satisfaction of an equitable distribution of marital assets and debts.” Magistrate’s
June 7, 2010 Decision at para. 25. The magistrate also found, prior to the marriage,
Wife owned real property located at 396 Shandon Court, Powell, Ohio, which became
rental property after the marriage. Sometime in April or May, 2008, the parties
discovered the exiting tenants had “trashed” the residence. Husband assisted in the
cleaning which included trash removal, carpet removal, drywall repair, and painting as Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 3
well as other general repairs. On May 30, 2008, Husband gave Wife $2000 to use
toward the mortgage and/or utilities. Husband had never paid Wife any other funds for
the property.
{¶5} The magistrate awarded Husband two of the three parcels of real property
owned by the parties and awarded the Wife the 396 Shandon Court property. After
dividing the parties’ assets and debt, the magistrate ordered Husband pay Wife “the
sum of $65,000.00 to complete the equitable distribution of tangible and intangible
property.” The magistrate did not make an award of spousal support to either party, but
ordered Husband to pay child support in the amount of $1,347.28/month plus
processing fees. The magistrate issued a shared parenting plan. The magistrate
further ordered Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees.
{¶6} Husband filed objections to the magistrate’s decision relative to the award
of attorney fees; the cash property award rather than the QDRO to which the parties
had agreed; his continued payment of Wife’s automobile debt; and the shared parenting
plan. Wife filed a memorandum contra. The parties worked with the guardian ad litem
and resolved the shared parenting plan issues. An Agreed Shared Parenting Order was
filed February 4, 2011.
{¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed October 26, 2011, the trial court sustained in part
and overruled in part Husband’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court
also granted the parties a divorce and issued orders generally consistent with the
magistrate’s decision.
{¶8} It is from this judgment entry Husband appeals, raising the following
assignments of error: Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 4
{¶9} “I. IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ERROR FOR THE TRIAL
COURT TO IGNORE THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE PARTIES WITH AN
ORDER OF THE CONTINUATION OF DEBT PAYMENTS BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DECREE OF DIVORCE.
{¶10} “II. IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ERROR FOR THE TRIAL
COURT TO IGNORE THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE PARTIES WITH AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.”
I
{¶11} In his first assignment of error, Husband contends the trial court abused its
discretion and erred in ordering him to continue to pay Wife’s debt after the effective
date of the divorce decree thereby ignoring the parties’ settlement agreement.
{¶12} Our standard of reviewing decisions of a domestic relations court is
generally the abuse of discretion standard. Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142.
The term abuse of discretion implies the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable. Id. at 219. When applying the abuse of discretion standard, this Court
may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med.
Board, (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621.
{¶13} The parties spend a good portion of their respective briefs arguing the
scope of the settlement agreement. Husband posits the $65,000 lump sum payment
included Wife’s attorney fees as well as Wife’s car payments; therefore, the trial court
should have credited him with the monies he paid after the effective date of the decree,
to wit: October 14, 2008. Wife, on the other hand, submits the agreement was informal
and was intended only as a partial settlement of some of the parties’ financial issues. Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 5
However, in a letter dated May 20, 2008, written in response to a May 19, 2008
correspondence from Husband’s counsel, Attorney Massucci, counsel for Wife,
indicated Wife was in agreement with Husband paying her “$65,000.00 in satisfaction of
all financial and property issues” except for pending child and spousal support issues.
{¶14} A determination of whether the parties’ agreement was a complete or
partial settlement of the financial issues is not dispositive of the issue sub judice.
Husband testified, under the parties’ agreement, Wife would take responsibility for her
car payments once he paid her the lump sum amount of $65,000. Wife similarly
testified she presumed Husband would not be responsible for the car payments
following the end of the divorce. As of the filing of the October 26, 2011 Judgment
Entry, over three years after the parties reached the agreement, Husband still had not
paid Wife any of the settlement monies. By failing to pay the agreed settlement amount,
Husband became the architect of his own demise. Husband could have, at any time,
paid Wife the $65,000.00 and ended his obligation to pay Wife’s car debt.
{¶15} Husband’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II
{¶16} In his second assignment of error, Husband contends the trial court
abused its discretion and erred in awarding attorney fees to Wife thereby ignoring the
parties’ settlement agreement.
{¶17} “An award of attorney fees in a domestic relations action is within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion.” McEnery v. McEnery, 10th Dist. No. 00AP–69, 2000 WL 1863370 (Dec. 21,
2000) at *3, citing Goode v. Goode, 70 Ohio App.3d 125, 134 (10thDist.1991). Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 6
{¶18} Initially, we must determine whether Husband preserved this error. It is
axiomatic a litigant's failure to raise an issue in the trial court waives the litigant's right to
raise that issue on appeal. Shover v. Cordis Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 213, 220, 574
N.E.2d 457, overruled on other grounds in Collins v. Sotka (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 506,
692 N.E.2d 581
{¶19} A review of the record reveals Husband failed to object to Wife’s testimony
relative to her attorney fees as well as the trial court’s admission of exhibits reflecting
such fees.
{¶20} Assuming, arguendo, Husband properly preserved this error for our
review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees of
$22,500.00 to Wife. Wife presented evidence she incurred over $26,000.00 in attorney
fees. Wife testified she charged $5,000.00 on one of Husband’s credit cards to pay
attorney fees. While Wife acknowledged she was obligated to repay Husband the
$5000.00, and such was contemplated during the settlement discussions and,
ultimately, in the amount of money she received, there was no other testimony
establishing the settlement included, contemplated or considered Wife’s additional
attorney fees. As such we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion to awarding
them to Wife.
{¶21} Husband’s second assignment of error is overruled. Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 7
{¶22} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER Delaware County, Case No. 11CAF110109 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOEL M. BOYDEN : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : SHERYL MARIE BOYDEN : : Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 11CAF110109
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer___________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER