Fisher v. Fisher

2025 Ohio 2040

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: CA2024-07-043
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Fisher v. Fisher, 2025-Ohio-2040.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

JESSIE LYN FISHER, : CASE NO. CA2024-07-043 Appellant, :

: OPINION AND - vs - JUDGMENT ENTRY : 6/9/2025

PAUL DAVIS FISHER, III, :

Appellee. :

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. 22DR43752

Ernst & Associates, and David E. Ernst, for appellant.

Diehl & Hubbell, LLC, and Martin E. Hubbell, for appellee.

OPINION

BYRNE, P.J.

{¶ 1} Jessie Lyn Fisher appeals from the decision of the Warren County Court of

Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which granted her a divorce from Paul Warren CA2024-07-043

Davis Fisher, III. Specifically, Jessie appeals from aspects of the domestic relations

court's decision that divided the parties' marital property and marital debt. For the reasons

described below, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Jessie and Paul married in 1992. The record reflects that in September

2022, Jessie obtained an ex parte civil protection order against Paul, and he was removed

from the marital home. In November 2022, Jessie filed for divorce. There are no minor

children at issue.

{¶ 3} During the proceedings, the parties identified contested issues to be

determined by the domestic relations court. Relevant to this appeal, those contested

issues included Paul's claim to allocate marital credit card debt, Jessie's claim for cash

that she asserted Paul removed from a safe in the marital home, and Paul's claim for cash

that he allegedly left for Jessie in the marital home. A domestic relations court magistrate

held a hearing on these matters. We will summarize the key hearing testimony below.

A. The Contested Hearing

1. Jessie's Testimony

{¶ 4} Jessie testified that in the summer of 2022 she learned information that led

her to be concerned about the status of her marriage to Paul. Based on this information,

she began paying attention to the financial aspects of her marriage. Before this time,

finances had been Paul's responsibility.

{¶ 5} Jessie testified that the parties separated on September 11, 2022. This was

also the date that she had Paul served with an ex parte civil protection order and the date

that Paul was removed from the home. After service of the protection order, Paul had not

been back to the home except when he was there with a police officer to retrieve personal

items.

-2- Warren CA2024-07-043

{¶ 6} Jessie claimed to never have had any credit cards during the marriage, and

that she had never seen Paul use any credit cards during the marriage. Yet she stated

that she had recently learned that six credit cards had been fraudulently opened in her

name.

{¶ 7} Jessie testified that she had a business called "The Opry." Paul also had a

restaurant business called "The Woodshed." The Woodshed opened in April 2022, but

the couple had been working long before that time to find, fix up, and remodel a property.

{¶ 8} Jessie testified that there was a large safe in the basement of the marital

home. She and Paul kept cash in that safe. The cash was generated from a food booth

business that they operated at festivals.

{¶ 9} Jessie identified an exhibit that was a photograph of this safe with its door

open. Jessie testified that this photograph was taken in June 2022. She stated that she

knew this date because the Country Musical Festival had just happened and the cash the

parties generated from their food booth business was in the safe.

{¶ 10} The photograph depicts a safe with multiple shelves. Jessie testified that

the lowest shelf held various bundles or envelopes of cash and the total amount of cash

depicted on the shelf was "like a hundred thousand dollars." Even though the exact

amount of cash was not determinable from the photograph, Jessie said that she knew

how much was in the safe in that photograph because she had helped Paul count the

money.

{¶ 11} Jessie stated that she had no access to this safe, that Paul refused to

provide her with the combination to the safe, and that she had never opened the safe by

herself.

{¶ 12} Jessie testified that in October 2022 (after Paul had been removed from the

home), she hired a locksmith to open the safe, with her friend, Brenda Oney, present.

-3- Warren CA2024-07-043

When the locksmith opened the safe, the cash was gone. Jessie identified an exhibit

consisting of another photograph of the safe, which was taken after the safe was opened

by the locksmith. The drawer, where the cash had been in the previous exhibit, was empty.

{¶ 13} Jessie testified that she was asking the court to reimburse her for half of the

$100,000 in cash she asserted Paul removed from the safe—that is, $50,000.

{¶ 14} Jessie denied Paul's claim that he had left her $20,000 in cash around the

time when he left the marital home.

2. Brenda Oney's Testimony

{¶ 15} Brenda Oney testified that she was friends with Jessie and had been

present when the safe was opened by the locksmith. She confirmed that there was no

cash in the safe when it was opened.

3. Paul Fisher's Testimony

{¶ 16} Paul testified that the photograph depicting cash in the safe must have been

taken before October 2021 (that is, long before the June 2022 date testified to by Jessie).

Paul explained that he knew this because the photograph depicted flooring tiles on the

ground to the left of the safe, and those flooring tiles had been installed in The Woodshed

between November and December 2021. Paul stated that Jessie had access to the

combination to the safe, and the combination was written down for her in a different safe

in the marital home.

{¶ 17} Paul testified that the amount of cash depicted in the photograph was not

$100,000, but $41,000. Some of the cash was for the food booth festival business and

would be used to make change for people who paid cash. Paul testified that "every dime"

of that money had been spent since that photograph was taken. Paul testified that the

money was used for various purposes, including improvements to the parties' businesses.

He stated that $10,000 was spent making various improvements to The Opry.

-4- Warren CA2024-07-043

{¶ 18} Paul also testified that in August 2022, Jessie was mentally unstable and

called him asking him to come home. He stated that he put $20,000 in a black laptop case

and left it for her at the marital home. That was the last of the money in the safe. Paul

testified that he wanted half of that money, or $10,000, credited to him in the divorce.

{¶ 19} Paul testified about spending and payments on multiple credit cards that

occurred while the marriage was ongoing, and after the September 2022 separation date.

Paul reviewed various exhibits, which consisted of statements for five credit cards. Paul

testified as to his spending on these cards, which he explained were used for various

expenses, including the costs of exiting a timeshare property in Florida; for airline, rental

car, and other expenses on trips to Florida; for a dog; for expenses related to The Opry;

for furniture; and for the funeral expenses of a relative. Paul also explained that he had

personally made payments on these various credit accounts after the separation date.

Paul asked for reimbursement for half of his payments on the credit cards and that the

remaining credit card debt be allocated equally. Paul testified that Jessie was aware of

his using credit cards for purchases during the marriage.

B. Magistrate's Decision on Marital Credit Card Debt

{¶ 20} After the contested hearing, the magistrate issued a Magistrate's Decision

Recommending Divorce.

{¶ 21} The magistrate's decision first addressed Paul's request to allocate credit

card debt. The magistrate noted Jessie's testimony that she was unaware that Paul used

credit cards and denying that the parties had incurred any credit card debt during the

marriage. The magistrate found it "extremely difficult" to believe that despite being married

for more than 30 years, Jessie would be unaware that Paul used credit cards. The

magistrate observed that the parties travelled and purchased goods and services that

could not be paid for with cash. The magistrate found that Jessie's assertion that she did

-5- Warren CA2024-07-043

not know about the credit cards was either the result of deliberate ignorance or a way to

avoid responsibility for any credit card debt. The magistrate also found that the credit card

debt testified to by Paul was accumulated during the marriage, was for the benefit of both

parties, and there was no evidence presented of financial misconduct. The magistrate

granted Paul's request to be partially reimbursed for payments he made on the credit

cards and ordered this amount to be credited to Paul in the final division of property. The

magistrate also ordered the parties to pay the remaining balance of the credit card debt

equally.

{¶ 22} The magistrate's decision next addressed the parties' respective testimony

and arguments as to cash they believed was owed to them. Ultimately, the magistrate

found that both parties were "equally credible," but that neither had proven their case.

This was not a statement that the magistrate believed either party, but that the parties'

testimony was such that the magistrate did not believe one over the other. The magistrate

described the issue as "he said/she said." Accordingly, the magistrate found that Paul

was not entitled to half of the $20,000 he claimed to have left Jessie and that Jessie was

not entitled to half of the $100,000 she claimed Paul removed from the safe.

C. Decision on Objections to Magistrate's Decision

{¶ 23} Jessie objected to the magistrate's decision, arguing that the magistrate

erred in granting Paul's requests to allocate credit card debt and erred in finding against

Jessie on her claim concerning the alleged $100,000 of cash in the safe.

{¶ 24} The domestic relations court issued a decision on Jessie's objections. As to

the allocation of credit card debt, the domestic relations court found Jessie's assertions

that she was unaware of the credit card debt incurred during the marriage to be

unbelievable. The court noted that even if Jessie was ignorant of Paul's use of credit

cards, she had a responsibility to ask questions about how Paul was paying for the

-6- Warren CA2024-07-043

couple's expenses. The court also noted that Paul had filed his affidavit of income and

expenses, listing considerable credit card debt, nearly a year before the final hearing. The

court found that Jessie had time to investigate the credit card debt and never provided

any reason prior to trial that she was unprepared to address the issue of marital credit

card debt.

{¶ 25} Regarding alleged cash in the safe, the court noted that Jessie's affidavit of

income and expenses did not refer to any cash in the safe, let alone $100,000 in cash,

and that there was nothing else in the parties' financial circumstances to suggest that they

would have $100,000 in cash in their home. The court also noted that Paul was abruptly

removed from the home in September 2022 and would not have had access to the safe

after that time, and thus no opportunity to remove the cash. Like the magistrate, the

domestic relations court found that the evidence submitted by Jessie did not prove the

existence of the cash.

{¶ 26} The domestic relations court overruled Jessie's objections and adopted the

magistrate's decision in full.

{¶ 27} Jessie appealed, raising one assignment of error.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 28} Jessie's assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION AND NOT AWARDING HER FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM A MARITAL SAFE SHE HAD NO ACCESS TO AND PAY CREDIT CARD DEBT OF WHICH SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AT TRIAL.

{¶ 29} Jessie raises two issues in support of this assignment of error. She argues

that the domestic relations court erred by (1) ordering her to pay half of the parties' credit

-7- Warren CA2024-07-043

card debt, and (2) not awarding her half of the $100,000 of cash she claimed Paul took

from the safe.

A. Law of Property Division

{¶ 30} Property division in a divorce proceeding is a two-step process that is

subject to two different standards of review. Garcia v. Garcia Samano, 2019-Ohio-3223,

¶ 10 (12th Dist.), citing Smith v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-7463, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.). First, the

domestic relations court must determine "what constitutes marital property and what

constitutes separate property." R.C. 3105.171(B). We review the classification of property

or debt as marital or separate under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and

will not reverse a domestic relations court's classification if it is supported by competent

and credible evidence. Oliver v. Oliver, 2011-Ohio-6345, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.); Renz v. Renz,

2011-Ohio-1634, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). In determining whether competent and credible

evidence exists, a court of appeals should be guided by the presumption that the findings

of the trial court are correct. Zollar v. Zollar, 2009-Ohio-1008, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), citing Bey

v. Bey, 2009-Ohio-300, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.). This presumption exists because the trial judge is

best able to view the witnesses, observe their demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections,

and use those observations in weighing the credibility of the testimony. Id.

{¶ 31} Second, the domestic relations court then must equitably divide the marital

property and separate property between the spouses in accordance with the provisions

of R.C. 3105.171. Smith at ¶ 9. The domestic relations court has broad discretion to

determine an equitable and fair division of the marital estate. Bauer v. Bauer, 2020-Ohio-

425, ¶ 22, (12th Dist.), citing Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 355 (1981). This court

will not reverse a domestic relations court's decision regarding the division of property in

a divorce proceeding absent an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion implies

-8- Warren CA2024-07-043

that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore

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

B. Analysis: Credit Card Debt

{¶ 32} For her first issue for review in support of her assignment of error, Jessie

contends that the trial court erred in equally dividing the parties' credit card debt. She

states that the credit card debt should have been entirely allocated to Paul based on her

assertion that she lacked any knowledge of Paul's use of credit cards. Jessie further

asserts that Paul testified that all the credit card debt was incurred for improvements to

The Woodshed's building, and Paul was awarded that business in the divorce.

{¶ 33} We find that the domestic relations court's classification of the credit card

debt as marital property was supported by competent and credible evidence. First, we

note that Paul disclosed the credit card debt in his affidavit of income and expenses.

Jessie filed numerous motions during the pendency of the divorce and never raised any

issues with respect to the credit card debt or any issues with obtaining discovery on Paul's

use of credit cards. Second, Jessie's assertion that Paul testified that all the credit card

debt was used for his business is unsupported by the record. In fact, Paul testified that

the credit cards were used for marital expenses and testified as to the purchases on each

credit card. Those purchases related to buying out the parties' timeshare, improvements

to Jessie's Opry business, the purchase of a dog, furniture, travel expenses, a relative's

funeral costs, and similar marital expenditures. Jessie presented no contradictory

evidence and the court found that Paul was credible as to these expenses. Thus, the

domestic relations court's classification of the credit card debt as marital was supported

by competent and credible evidence. Oliver, 2011-Ohio-6345 at ¶ 8.

{¶ 34} Furthermore, we find nothing in the record that would support the conclusion

that the domestic relations court abused its discretion by equally allocating the credit card

-9- Warren CA2024-07-043

debt between Jessie and Paul. As stated above, Paul presented competent and credible

evidence that the credit card debt was used for marital expenses and thus an equal

allocation was reasonable. See Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219.

{¶ 35} Jessie's arguments regarding the trial court's allocation of credit card debt

lack merit.

C. Analysis: Cash in the Safe

{¶ 36} For her second issue for review in support of her assignment of error, Jessie

argues that the domestic relations court erred by not awarding her $50,000 based on her

allegation that Paul removed $100,000 of cash from the safe in the marital home. She

argues that the greater weight of the evidence supported her claim that the safe contained

$100,000.

{¶ 37} Upon review, we find that the domestic relations court's decision declining

to award Jessie some amount for cash allegedly in the marital home's safe was not

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶ 38} The domestic relations court found that Jessie had not proven her case, by

a preponderance of the evidence, with respect to cash in the safe. The record supports

this conclusion. The only evidence submitted by Jessie in support of her claim regarding

the cash was her testimony that the safe contained $100,000 and a photograph that

showed bundles of cash in the safe on an indeterminate date and in an indeterminate

amount. The amount of money that was depicted in the photograph was never

demonstrated through any competent and credible means, and the domestic relations

court was free not to believe Jessie's testimony about the total value of the cash.

{¶ 39} Further, as noted by the domestic relations court, Jessie filed an affidavit of

income and expenses at the beginning of the case and gave no indication that the parties

possessed a significant amount of cash. She said nothing about $100,000 in cash that

- 10 - Warren CA2024-07-043

had disappeared and needed to be accounted for. The court was free to conclude that

Jessie's longtime silence about cash in the safe undermined her credibility in later

asserting its existence and removal by Paul.

{¶ 40} Given the evidence in the record, and as noted by the magistrate and

domestic relations court, this was simply a "he said/she said" situation. No independent

proof was offered as to the amount of cash in the safe or when it was in the safe. Under

these circumstances we do not find that the domestic relations court's conclusion that

Jessie failed to prove the existence of the $100,000 of cash was against the manifest

weight of the evidence. The domestic relations court was not required to believe Jessie's

testimony. See Suburban Realty, L.P. v. MD Vape & Tobacco, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3198, ¶

50 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 41} Jessie also argues that the court should at least have credited her some

amount with respect to cash in the safe (even if less than $50,000) given that Paul testified

that the safe contained $41,000. This argument has no merit. Paul only testified that the

safe had at one point contained $41,000 and that the money had since been spent on the

parties' businesses and other marital expenses.

{¶ 42} For these reasons, we find that the domestic relations court's decision with

respect to alleged cash in the safe was supported by competent and credible evidence.

Oliver, 2011-Ohio-6345 at ¶ 8. Jessie's arguments regarding cash in the safe lack merit.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 43} Jessie raises two issues in this appeal. In support of both, Jessie essentially

argues that the domestic relations court should have believed her and given weight to her

testimony. But the domestic relations court was in the best position to evaluate witness

credibility and the weight of the testimony. Zollar, 2009-Ohio-1008 at ¶ 10. We defer to

the domestic relations court in this regard and find no error based on the record before

- 11 - Warren CA2024-07-043

us. We overrule Jessie's assignment of error.

{¶ 44} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Presiding Judge

/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

- 12 -