[Cite as Galinis v. Galinis, 2017-Ohio-7831.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOSEPH R. GALINIS JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- Case No. 2017CA00020 CHRISTINE M. GALINIS
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2015DR00885
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 26, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JEFFREY R. JAKMIDES JASON P. REESE 325 East Main Street 101 Central Plaza South Alliance, Ohio 44601 Suite 1003 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Joseph R. Galinis (“Husband”) appeals the January 24,
2017 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court
Division, which overruled his objections to the magistrate’s September 19, 2016 decision,
and approved and adopted said decision as order of the court. Defendant-appellee is
Christine M. Galinis (“Wife”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Husband and Wife were married on June 18, 1994. Three children were
born as issue of the marriage, two of the children are emancipated. All three children live
in the marital residence.
{¶3} Husband filed a Complaint for Divorce on September 2, 2015. Upon the
filing of the Complaint, the trial court issued an Exhibit D Order which required the parties
to deposit their paychecks into a joint account. Husband filed motions to show cause on
January 27, 2016, February 16, 2016, and March 23, 2016. In each motion, Husband
alleged Wife was making unauthorized withdrawals and stealing marital funds.
{¶4} The magistrate conducted a final divorce hearing on April 19, 2016, and
June 28, 2016, during which he also heard Husband’s motions to show cause.
{¶5} The following evidence was presented at the hearing.
{¶6} Husband owns one half of Aspen Homes, Inc., an S corporation. His
brother owns the other half. Aspen Homes is in the business of residential construction.
Aspen showed an annual loss of approximately $20,000/year during the last two years.
According to Social Security records, Husband earned $37,200.00, in 2015. Between Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 3
2004, and 2012, Aspen consistently paid dividends. Aspen paid $15,000.00, in dividends
in 2012.
{¶7} Wife works for the Marlington Public School District as a teacher. Wife
worked part-time prior to the 2014-2015 academic year, during which she became full-
time. Wife’s income was $33,516.00, in 2012, and $37,921.00, in 2013. Her W-2 wages
for 2015 were $55,851.00.
{¶8} The parties agreed to the appraiser’s valuation of $265,000.00, of the
marital residence situated on 25.83 acres located at 15545 Georgetown Road, Minerva,
Ohio. Wayne Savings Bank holds the mortgage on the property with a balance of
$194,314.00, as well as a home equity line of credit with a balance of $16,461.00. The
equity in the marital residence was $54,225.00.
{¶9} Wife drives a 2015 Ford Focus, which is titled in her name. Wife’s vehicle
was valued at $12,944.00. Husband has a 2006 Ford truck which he uses for business
and pleasure. The truck was valued at $4,208.00. Husband also has a 1999 TC 29 New
Holland tractor, valued at $8,000.00; a 2000 Polaris Scrambler ATV, valued at $3,000.00;
and a 2006 Yamaha Warrior, valued at $1,500.00.
{¶10} The parties had joint bank accounts at First Merit and Huntington. They
had equal access to these accounts. When the trial court issued the Exhibit D Order, it
did not specify into which joint account the parties were to deposit their paychecks. Wife’s
pay was directly deposited into the Huntington account. Wife paid the household bills
and her credit cards from the Huntington account. However, in December, 2015, she
began transferring the remaining funds into the First Merit account. Husband opened a Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 4
personal account in January, 2016, and completely stopped depositing his paychecks
into the joint accounts after February 16, 2016.
{¶11} In December, 2015, Husband wrote a check for $1,000.00, on the
Huntington account, which resulted in an overdraft. Wife covered the overdraft by
transferring funds from the First Merit account. Husband wrote a $900.00 check on the
First Merit account which resulted in three overdraft charges. On January 9, 2016, Wife
wrote a check to herself for $9,800.00, from the First Merit account. Wife applied those
funds to the Wayne Savings home equity line of credit. The $9,800.00 was part of the
insurance proceeds the parties received after Husband’s 2006 Chevrolet truck was
totaled. The parties originally had used the Wayne Savings line of credit to purchase the
totaled vehicle. The balance of the insurance proceeds remained in the First Merit
account.
{¶12} Throughout the proceedings, Husband and Wife each used their credit
cards and made payments in excess of the minimum payments as required by the Exhibit
D Order. The parties failed to keep receipts to substantiate their expenditures from the
joint accounts.
{¶13} The magistrate issued his decision on September 19, 2016. The magistrate
denied all of Husband’s motions to show cause. The magistrate awarded the marital
residence to Husband as he operated his business from the home and the adult children
who were attending college resided with him. The magistrate found an award of spousal
support to either party would not be reasonable or appropriate. Likewise, the magistrate
determined an award of child support would be unjust, inappropriate, and not in the best
interest of the child. With respect to the parties’ retirement benefits, the magistrate Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 5
awarded Husband 10% of the marital portion of Wife’s STRS account. The magistrate
based the award on the fact Husband “received virtually all of the marital assets including
his interest in Aspen” and the fact the trial court “offset the marital portion of his social
security account against WIFE’s STRS account.” Magistrate’s Decision at 14.
{¶14} Husband filed objections on September 30, 2016. Via filed January 24,
2017, the trial court overruled Husband’s objections, and approved and adopted the
magistrate’s decision as order of the court.
{¶15} It is from this entry Husband appeals, raising the following assignments of
error:
I. THE MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS WERE AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONTRARY TO THE
TESTIMONY PROVIDED AT TRIAL, AND INCLUDED ERRORS OF FACT.
II. THE MAGISTRATE MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN TERMS OF AN
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MARTIAL [SIC] PROPERTY.
I
{¶16} In his first assignment of error, Husband contends the magistrate’s findings
were against the manifest weight of the evidence, contrary to the testimony adduced at
trial, and included errors of fact. We disagree.
{¶17} When reviewing a trial court's decisions in a divorce proceeding, an
appellate court will not reweigh the evidence introduced in a trial court, but will uphold the
findings of the trial court when the record contains some competent evidence to sustain Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 6
the trial court's conclusions. Fletcher v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Galinis v. Galinis, 2017-Ohio-7831.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOSEPH R. GALINIS JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- Case No. 2017CA00020 CHRISTINE M. GALINIS
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2015DR00885
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 26, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JEFFREY R. JAKMIDES JASON P. REESE 325 East Main Street 101 Central Plaza South Alliance, Ohio 44601 Suite 1003 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Joseph R. Galinis (“Husband”) appeals the January 24,
2017 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court
Division, which overruled his objections to the magistrate’s September 19, 2016 decision,
and approved and adopted said decision as order of the court. Defendant-appellee is
Christine M. Galinis (“Wife”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Husband and Wife were married on June 18, 1994. Three children were
born as issue of the marriage, two of the children are emancipated. All three children live
in the marital residence.
{¶3} Husband filed a Complaint for Divorce on September 2, 2015. Upon the
filing of the Complaint, the trial court issued an Exhibit D Order which required the parties
to deposit their paychecks into a joint account. Husband filed motions to show cause on
January 27, 2016, February 16, 2016, and March 23, 2016. In each motion, Husband
alleged Wife was making unauthorized withdrawals and stealing marital funds.
{¶4} The magistrate conducted a final divorce hearing on April 19, 2016, and
June 28, 2016, during which he also heard Husband’s motions to show cause.
{¶5} The following evidence was presented at the hearing.
{¶6} Husband owns one half of Aspen Homes, Inc., an S corporation. His
brother owns the other half. Aspen Homes is in the business of residential construction.
Aspen showed an annual loss of approximately $20,000/year during the last two years.
According to Social Security records, Husband earned $37,200.00, in 2015. Between Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 3
2004, and 2012, Aspen consistently paid dividends. Aspen paid $15,000.00, in dividends
in 2012.
{¶7} Wife works for the Marlington Public School District as a teacher. Wife
worked part-time prior to the 2014-2015 academic year, during which she became full-
time. Wife’s income was $33,516.00, in 2012, and $37,921.00, in 2013. Her W-2 wages
for 2015 were $55,851.00.
{¶8} The parties agreed to the appraiser’s valuation of $265,000.00, of the
marital residence situated on 25.83 acres located at 15545 Georgetown Road, Minerva,
Ohio. Wayne Savings Bank holds the mortgage on the property with a balance of
$194,314.00, as well as a home equity line of credit with a balance of $16,461.00. The
equity in the marital residence was $54,225.00.
{¶9} Wife drives a 2015 Ford Focus, which is titled in her name. Wife’s vehicle
was valued at $12,944.00. Husband has a 2006 Ford truck which he uses for business
and pleasure. The truck was valued at $4,208.00. Husband also has a 1999 TC 29 New
Holland tractor, valued at $8,000.00; a 2000 Polaris Scrambler ATV, valued at $3,000.00;
and a 2006 Yamaha Warrior, valued at $1,500.00.
{¶10} The parties had joint bank accounts at First Merit and Huntington. They
had equal access to these accounts. When the trial court issued the Exhibit D Order, it
did not specify into which joint account the parties were to deposit their paychecks. Wife’s
pay was directly deposited into the Huntington account. Wife paid the household bills
and her credit cards from the Huntington account. However, in December, 2015, she
began transferring the remaining funds into the First Merit account. Husband opened a Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 4
personal account in January, 2016, and completely stopped depositing his paychecks
into the joint accounts after February 16, 2016.
{¶11} In December, 2015, Husband wrote a check for $1,000.00, on the
Huntington account, which resulted in an overdraft. Wife covered the overdraft by
transferring funds from the First Merit account. Husband wrote a $900.00 check on the
First Merit account which resulted in three overdraft charges. On January 9, 2016, Wife
wrote a check to herself for $9,800.00, from the First Merit account. Wife applied those
funds to the Wayne Savings home equity line of credit. The $9,800.00 was part of the
insurance proceeds the parties received after Husband’s 2006 Chevrolet truck was
totaled. The parties originally had used the Wayne Savings line of credit to purchase the
totaled vehicle. The balance of the insurance proceeds remained in the First Merit
account.
{¶12} Throughout the proceedings, Husband and Wife each used their credit
cards and made payments in excess of the minimum payments as required by the Exhibit
D Order. The parties failed to keep receipts to substantiate their expenditures from the
joint accounts.
{¶13} The magistrate issued his decision on September 19, 2016. The magistrate
denied all of Husband’s motions to show cause. The magistrate awarded the marital
residence to Husband as he operated his business from the home and the adult children
who were attending college resided with him. The magistrate found an award of spousal
support to either party would not be reasonable or appropriate. Likewise, the magistrate
determined an award of child support would be unjust, inappropriate, and not in the best
interest of the child. With respect to the parties’ retirement benefits, the magistrate Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 5
awarded Husband 10% of the marital portion of Wife’s STRS account. The magistrate
based the award on the fact Husband “received virtually all of the marital assets including
his interest in Aspen” and the fact the trial court “offset the marital portion of his social
security account against WIFE’s STRS account.” Magistrate’s Decision at 14.
{¶14} Husband filed objections on September 30, 2016. Via filed January 24,
2017, the trial court overruled Husband’s objections, and approved and adopted the
magistrate’s decision as order of the court.
{¶15} It is from this entry Husband appeals, raising the following assignments of
error:
I. THE MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS WERE AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONTRARY TO THE
TESTIMONY PROVIDED AT TRIAL, AND INCLUDED ERRORS OF FACT.
II. THE MAGISTRATE MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN TERMS OF AN
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MARTIAL [SIC] PROPERTY.
I
{¶16} In his first assignment of error, Husband contends the magistrate’s findings
were against the manifest weight of the evidence, contrary to the testimony adduced at
trial, and included errors of fact. We disagree.
{¶17} When reviewing a trial court's decisions in a divorce proceeding, an
appellate court will not reweigh the evidence introduced in a trial court, but will uphold the
findings of the trial court when the record contains some competent evidence to sustain Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 6
the trial court's conclusions. Fletcher v. Fletcher (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 464, 468. See
also Ross v. Ross (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 203, 414 N.E.2d 426.
{¶18} Husband argues the trial court failed to consider critical testimony in
reaching its decision. Husband points to Wife’s cross-examination during which she
admitted she failed to abide by the trial court’s Exhibit D Order. According to Husband,
although Wife’s testimony established she did not deposit her paychecks into the joint
accounts, made unauthorized withdrawals, continued to use her credit cards, and made
more than the minimum payments on her credit cards, the trial court absolved Wife of any
wrongdoing and overlooked “her willful violation” of the Exhibit D Order. Brief of Appellant
at 9.
{¶19} As set forth, supra, in our Statement of the Facts and Case, the parties had
two joint bank accounts, one at First Merit and the other at Huntington. They had equal
access to these accounts. Wife’s pay was directly deposited into the Huntington account
from which she paid household bills and her credit cards. Wife testified, after Husband
overdrew the Huntington account, she began using the First Merit account. Wife
acknowledged writing a check to herself for $9,800.00, from the First Merit account on
January 9, 2016. Wife testified she applied those funds to the Wayne Savings home
equity line of credit. The $9,800.00 was part of the insurance proceeds the parties
received after Husband’s 2006 Chevrolet truck was totaled. The parties originally had
used the Wayne Savings line of credit to purchase the totaled vehicle. The balance of
the insurance proceeds remained in the First Merit account.
{¶20} Wife provided the trial court with a detailed accounting of where she
expended the parties’ joint funds, including assisting the adult children with their tuition. Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 7
Husband, on the other hand, wrote a check for $1,000.00, in December, 2015, and a
second check for $900.00, without offering an explanation for these expenditures. Both
of these checks resulted in the joint accounts being overdrawn. Husband stopped
depositing his paychecks into the joint accounts in February, 2016. The parties each used
their credit cards at will and paid more than the minimum payments each month.
{¶21} Husband also raises questions about Wife’s commitment to the family by
moving out of the marital residence during the pendency of the proceedings. Husband
submits Wife’s departure from the residence was a violation of the Exhibit D Order which
required the parties to stay under the same roof.
{¶22} Wife offered detailed testimony about the tension in the home which existed
while the parties remained together. Wife also testified, when she returned home, she
would find no hot water, the garage doors disabled, and her clothes placed in the garage.
Husband would stand over Wife while she slept. The atmosphere became unbearable
for Wife.
{¶23} In light of the foregoing, we find the magistrate’s findings were not against
the manifest weight of the evidence and supported by the testimony.
{¶24} Husband’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II
{¶25} In his second assignment of error, Husband asserts the magistrate
misapplied the law in terms of an equitable division of marital property. Specifically,
Husband argues the magistrate should have awarded him 50% of $138,234.38, which Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 8
represents the marital portion of Wife’s STRS account, $276,468.75, less an offset of the
marital portion of Husband’s social security account, $138,367.72.1
{¶26} An appellate court reviews the overall appropriateness of the trial court's
property division in divorce proceedings under an abuse of discretion standard. Cherry v.
Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 421 N.E.2d 1293. In order to find an abuse of
discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore
(1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
{¶27} R.C. 3105.171(C)(1) states, “Except as provided in this division * * * the
division of marital property shall be equal. If an equal division of marital property would
be inequitable, the court shall not divide the marital property equally but instead shall
divide it between the spouses in the manner the court determines equitable. In making a
division of marital property, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including those
set forth in division (F) of this section.”
{¶28} The trial court awarded Husband marital property valued at $273,305.00,
and Wife marital property valued at $261,766. Husband maintains, although the trial court
acknowledged Aspen Homes had suffered an annual loss of approximately $20,000/year
during the two years preceding the divorce, the trial court did not consider Husband’s
financial position and future earning ability when it divided the marital property. Husband
adds the trial court’s attempt to justify the distribution based upon his being awarded the
1When we calculate the difference between the marital portion of Wife’s STRS account and the marital portion of Husband’s social security account, we arrive at a figure of $138,101.03. Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 9
recreational vehicles was misplaced as the vehicles were required for the maintenance
of the marital/business property.
{¶29} The trial court assigned a value of $12,500.00, for all three recreational
vehicles. Assuming, arguendo, the trial court erroneously assigned the value of the
recreational vehicles to Husband’s total distribution, we find any error is harmless as he
and Wife would receive virtually equal distributions if the value of the vehicles was
reduced from Husband’s award.
{¶30} As for the trial court assigning a value of $10,000.00, for Aspen Homes, we
find such to be supported by the record. Husband assigned this figure as the value of
Aspen Homes on his financial statement. Aspen Homes owned a building worth over
$40,000.00. Husband pays the electric, cable, cell phones, house phone, garbage pick-
up, home security, and vehicle expenses including some gasoline from Aspen Homes’
accounts. These expenses total approximately $1,300.00/month. Further, despite
showing losses over the two years preceding the parties’ divorce, Aspen Homes began
paying Wife $5,200.00/year for services for which she had not been paid in the past. The
trial court clearly chose not to believe Husband’s claims Aspen Homes was going
bankrupt.
{¶31} Given the total distribution of marital assets to Husband, we find the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in only awarding Husband 10% of the marital portion of
Wife’s STRS account.
{¶32} Husband’s second assignment of error is overruled. Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00020 10
{¶33} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court
Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur