Littlepage v. Littlepage

2025 Ohio 1804

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: C-240423
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Littlepage v. Littlepage, 2025-Ohio-1804.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

MICHELE LEE LITTLEPAGE, : APPEAL NO. C-240423 TRIAL NO. DR-2302105 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY DANIEL WAYNE LITTLEPAGE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs are taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that 1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and 2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 5/21/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Littlepage v. Littlepage, 2025-Ohio-1804.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

MICHELE LEE LITTLEPAGE, : APPEAL NO. C-240423 TRIAL NO. DR-2302105 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION DANIEL WAYNE LITTLEPAGE, :

Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 21, 2025

Harry B. Plotnick, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Daniel Wayne Littlepage, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

MOORE, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant Husband appeals the domestic relations court’s final

judgment granting a decree of divorce. Husband argues that the court erred by not

addressing his allegations that Wife and her counsel engaged in fraud, conspiracy to

commit fraud, and falsification of court documents because Wife failed to disclose the

inheritance that she had received in 2021. Husband further argues that the court aided

and abetted Wife and her counsel in “hiding” the inheritance. Finally, Husband asserts

that the court committed prejudicial error by failing to address the “property loss”

caused by Wife’s violation of the “Administrative Temporary Restraining Order” and

the parties’ “Separation Agreement.” Husband requests that this court invalidate the

“Separation Agreement” and its amendment as well as the final decree of divorce and

remand the matter to the domestic relations court for a new separation agreement and

trial.

{¶2} Ultimately, Husband fails to support his challenges to the decree of

divorce. This is due in part to his failure to properly challenge Wife’s alleged improper

actions during the proceedings leading to the divorce and his failure to file a transcript

of proceedings for our review. We, therefore, affirm the domestic relations court’s

judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶3} Appellee Wife filed a complaint for divorce in December 2023. In her

complaint, Wife alleged the parties were incompatible and had been living apart for

more than a year. The most obvious cause for this separation was that Husband had

been incarcerated since 2013. Wife attached to her complaint the parties’ March 28,

2023 “Separation Agreement” and an August 14, 2023 amendment (together, “the

Separation Agreement”). She also filed the requisite property statement and affidavit OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

of income, expenses, and financial disclosure (“financial affidavit”).

{¶4} In January 2023, Husband filed his answer, which requested that the

court stay the proceedings until Wife complied with his pending “Motion for Pictorial

Inventory” of his property and his “Requests for Admission.” Husband asserted Wife’s

failure to complete the pictorial inventory and respond to the requests should render

the Separation Agreement void and re-establish his interest “in all property,” including

certain real estate and Wife’s retirement account. Husband’s answer did not address

any of the allegations in the complaint, assert a countercomplaint for divorce, or

otherwise seek dismissal of Wife’s complaint.

{¶5} Husband had filed his motion and sent Wife his requests a few days after

filing his answer. His motion for the pictorial inventory arose from a provision in the

Separation Agreement that provided Wife was to keep his tools and equipment until

he was freed from prison or died.

{¶6} The requests for admission generally regarded whether (1), prior to

Husband signing the Separation Agreement, Wife told him about the account that held

the proceeds from the inheritance she had received, (2) Wife’s counsel advised her not

to disclose the account to the court, and (3) Wife withheld the inheritance because she

knew Husband would not sign the Separation Agreement if he knew about it.

{¶7} A few weeks after serving Wife with requests for admission, Husband

served requests for admission on Wife’s counsel. These requests generally asked

counsel to admit or deny that he had knowledge of Wife’s inheritance when he drafted

the divorce documents, that he knowingly withheld that information from the court,

and that such behavior was his firm’s common practice.

{¶8} Wife filed a motion to strike all of Husband’s requests for admission and

his motion for a pictorial inventory. The motion also asserted, “In the alternative,

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Plaintiff and her counsel deny each and every request for admissions.” Wife attached

a memorandum stating that Husband’s requests were “extremely irregular and not in

conformance with” Civ.R. 34 and 36, and, as Husband was serving a life sentence, Wife

“should not be burdened with the cost and expense of making a pictorial inventory

merely to satisfy Defendant’s curiosity.” Wife also asserted that the information sought

by Husband in the requests for admission was protected by attorney-client privilege.

{¶9} In his response to Wife’s motion to strike, Husband asserted that the

fact that he was incarcerated was irrelevant to the proceedings and counsel’s general

denial of the admissions violated Civ.R. 36(A)(1). He argued that attorney-client

privilege was waived because the parties’ daughter was present during Wife’s

discussion with her counsel about the inheritance. Based on these assertions, Husband

requested the court order Wife to complete the pictorial inventory, find Wife in

violation of the Separation Agreement for failing to disclose the inheritance account,

and void the Separation Agreement and restructure the division of marital property.

{¶10} On January 23, 2024, the magistrate scheduled a telephone conference

for February 27, 2024. The court ordered Husband to be prepared to discuss his

motion for a pictorial inventory during that conference.

{¶11} On February 16, 2024, Husband filed a motion for summary judgment,

arguing that Wife failed to respond to his requests for admission so they must be

deemed “admitted.” He again asserted Wife’s claim of attorney-client privilege

regarding information about the inheritance account was waived because the daughter

was present during Wife’s discussions with counsel.

{¶12} Husband filed another motion for summary judgment on February 27,

2024, the same day as the previously scheduled telephone conference, asserting that

his motion should be granted because Wife’s counsel failed to respond to his requests

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

for admission.

{¶13} The magistrate filed an entry on February 27, 2024, ordering Husband

to be prepared to address his concerns regarding the Separation Agreement and any

property or accounts that had not been disclosed at the March 28, 2024 telephone

pretrial conference.

{¶14} On March 18, 2024, the magistrate issued an order directing Wife to

work with the parties’ daughter to complete a pictorial inventory of Husband’s

property. Once completed, the inventory would be given to Husband to review. A

property trial would be scheduled if there were any disagreements regarding any

claimed missing items.

{¶15} On May 6, 2024, after the completion of the pictorial inventory by the

parties’ daughter (with assistance from Wife’s nephew), Husband filed an addendum

to the pictorial inventory, wherein he listed 36 purportedly missing items. Husband

valued the missing items at approximately $56,465. Husband also sent a letter to

Wife’s counsel, insisting that Wife provide Husband with her nephew’s phone number;

Husband wanted the nephew to confirm whether items that appeared to be missing

were in the home.

{¶16} The parties agreed to a final hearing on the merits before the magistrate.

On June 20, 2024, the domestic relations court granted the final decree of divorce,

incorporating the Separation Agreement.

{¶17} On June 24, 2024, Husband filed a motion to set aside the final decree

of divorce based on his receipt of copies of documents from the account that held

Wife’s inheritance. Husband’s motion was not made pursuant to any specific Ohio

Rule of Civil Procedure; however, he claimed that Wife’s counsel knowingly withheld

said documents. Husband claimed that he would not have signed the Separation

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Agreement had he known about the inheritance.

{¶18} Husband also argued in his motion that the magistrate should have

ordered Wife and her counsel to respond to his requests for admission and claimed

that the way Wife and her counsel denied the requests for admission was “haphazard.”

Husband reasserted his claim that Wife waived her claim of attorney-client privilege.

Finally, Husband argued that the magistrate should have ordered Wife to produce the

inheritance account documents.

{¶19} The domestic relations court denied Husband’s motion to set aside the

decree. The court interpreted Husband’s motion as a motion for relief from judgment

under Civ.R. 60(B) and, citing State ex rel. Hatfield v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-429, held

that a litigant cannot use such a motion as a substitute for a timely appeal.

{¶20} This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

A. Husband was not prejudiced as he failed to show that the inheritance at issue was subject to equitable division.

{¶21} We note that Husband failed to file transcripts of the proceedings as

requested by this court. In the absence of transcripts, the court has no choice but

to reject any claims of procedural error, presume the regularity and validity of the

lower court’s proceedings, and affirm its judgment. Burd v. Artis, 2025-Ohio-625, ¶

17 (1st Dist.).

{¶22} In Husband’s first assignment of error, he argues that the financial

affidavit and property statement filed by Wife were fraudulent because they did not

reflect the inheritance Wife had received in 2021. He asserts that he immediately

contested the divorce, in part, due to Wife’s failure to disclose the inheritance on the

forms, which he argues is a violation of the magistrate’s administrative orders under

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Hamilton Cty. C.P., Domestic Relations Div., Loc.R. 1.26(A). He contends that the

financial affidavit reflects that he is entitled to a portion of the inheritance but points

to nothing in the record or the law to support this contention.

{¶23} In Husband’s second assignment of error, he argues that he suffered

prejudice when the magistrate did not address Wife’s failure to disclose the 2021

inheritance on her financial affidavit and property statement. We consider the first

two assignments of error together.

{¶24} Neither of Husband’s concerns regarding the disclosure of the

inheritance on the forms have merit because Husband fails to show that the

inheritance was marital property and not Wife’s separate property. It is noteworthy

that despite his claims of harm based on Wife (and her counsel) failing to disclose the

inheritance, Husband concedes on appeal that he was aware of the inheritance prior

to receiving Wife’s complaint for divorce.

{¶25} Absent specific circumstances, Wife’s inheritance would not have been

part of the marital estate. Separate property consists of, among other things, “property

acquired before the marriage and certain other property, such as inheritances and

gifts, acquired by one spouse during the marriage.” Devito v. Devito, 2022-Ohio-2563,

¶ 23 (1st Dist.), quoting Boolchand v. Boolchand, 2020-Ohio-6951, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). A

spouse may retain separate property despite having comingled it with marital

property, because “[a]s long as it is traceable, separate property retains its

identity.” Id., citing R.C. 3105.171(A)(6)(b). Husband fails to cite anything in the

record to show that Wife’s inheritance was commingled with marital assets such that

it was untraceable.

{¶26} Accordingly, Husband’s first and second assignments of error are

overruled.

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

B. We must presume regularity of the proceedings and that the court addressed Husband’s allegations of property loss.

{¶27} In Husband’s third assignment of error, he argues the domestic

relations court prejudiced him by failing to address his allegation that Wife sold his

personal belongings in violation of the “Administrative Temporary Restraining Order”

(“Restraining Order”) and the parties’ Separation Agreement.

{¶28} Husband asserts that he raised concerns that Wife sold some of his

personal items that he deemed missing from the pictorial inventory. The record does

not show that Husband engaged in the appropriate motion practice—i.e., a motion for

contempt—to compel the magistrate to order Wife to comply with the Restraining

Order and the Separation Agreement. See Buckingham v. Buckingham, 2018-Ohio-

2039 (2d Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 554 (2001)

(“Civil contempt sanctions are designed for remedial or coercive purposes and are

often employed to compel obedience to a court order.”).

{¶29} The record does, however, show the magistrate ordered Husband to be

prepared to address his allegations of property loss during the telephonic pretrial

hearings. But in the absence of a transcript, we do not know how the magistrate

addressed the issue in the pretrial hearings, or at trial. Therefore, this court must

presume regularity of the proceedings.

{¶30} We overrule Husband’s third assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶31} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.