[Cite as Mahoney v. Moskowitz, 2026-Ohio-1638.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
BRIDGET LEA MAHONEY, : APPEAL NO. C-250228 TRIAL NO. DR-2300998 Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. :
ROBERT A. MOSKOWITZ, : JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendant-Appellee. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be 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 5/6/2026 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Mahoney v. Moskowitz, 2026-Ohio-1638.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
BRIDGET LEA MAHONEY, : APPEAL NO. C-250228 TRIAL NO. DR-2300998 Plaintiff-Appellant, :
ROBERT A. MOSKOWITZ, : OPINION
Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 6, 2026
Stagnaro Hannigan Koop, Co., LPA and Michaela M. Stagnaro, for Plaintiff- Appellant,
Moskowitz & Moskowitz, LLC, Rachel M. Alexander and Joel S. Moskowitz, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
KINSLEY, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} When Bridget Mahoney (“Wife”) and Robert Moskowitz (“Husband”)
divorced, the Domestic Relations Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common
Pleas determined that a premarital agreement (“prenup”) signed on their wedding day
was valid and enforceable, because no family or friends attended the ceremony and it
could easily have been postponed. The trial court then applied the terms of the prenup
and determined that certain assets, including the proceeds of the sale of Husband’s
family businesses and silver bars paid by a business client, were Husband’s separate
property. Recognizing the resulting disparity in income, the trial court awarded
spousal support to Wife but ordered that it end after approximately three years.
{¶2} Wife appeals these aspects of the trial court’s judgment. For the reasons
we explain in this opinion, we reject Wife’s arguments and affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
Background
{¶3} Husband and Wife were married on May 3, 2008, after dating for
approximately eight years. Husband owned an interest in two family businesses,
Moskowitz Brothers, Inc. (“MBI”) and Moskowitz Brothers, Company (“MBC”).1 Wife
engaged in meaningful volunteer work but was otherwise unemployed. Wife
separated from Husband in June of 2023 and ultimately filed for divorce.
{¶4} Three issues arose during the parties’ divorce. The first concerned the
enforceability of a prenup Husband and Wife executed the day of their wedding. By
its terms, the prenup indicated that Husband had been represented by counsel in
negotiating the agreement but Wife “ha[d] chosen not to be represented.” Despite her
1 Founded in 1901, MBI was a family business which recycled scrap metal, and MBC was a metal
brokerage company.
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
lack of representation, two provisions in the prenup were crossed out and initialed by
each party, indicating that Husband and Wife had agreed to modify its terms.
{¶5} As executed, the prenup stated that each party had fully disclosed to the
other the “nature, extent, and probable values of their property.” It was accompanied
by two exhibits that listed Husband’s and Wife’s individual assets and liabilities. To
the extent there were any discrepancies between the value of the assets listed on the
exhibits and their current market value, the prenup indicated the disclosures in the
exhibits were approximate and “not necessarily exact.” Under the agreement, all
property “owned or acquired by each party prior to the date of marriage (including but
not limited to the assets listed on [the exhibits]) and any appreciation thereof” was to
remain the party’s separate property. In addition, the prenup also provided that “any
liability attributable to either party’s separate property, whether presently existing or
hereafter accruing, shall be satisfied exclusively from and out of that party’s separate
property.”
{¶6} Wife contended that she was coerced to sign the prenup, because
Husband presented it to her for the first time as they were driving to their wedding.
She accordingly argued that the prenup was unenforceable. On September 12, 2023,
the trial court conducted a hearing on Wife’s claim.
{¶7} Husband and Wife both testified at the hearing. Husband testified that
he and Wife began dating in 2000, when he was in the process of divorcing his first
wife. Husband and Wife became engaged in 2005 and purchased a home on Ironwood
Court (“Ironwood”) together in September of 2007. Husband moved into Ironwood,
while Wife remained in a home she owned on Mesa Place (“Mesa”). As Husband and
Wife’s engagement dragged on, Husband was concerned they would not get married.
{¶8} Husband testified that he had an attorney prepare the prenup in the
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
middle of 2007. He discussed the prenup with Wife several times to obtain her asset
and debt information, which was included in an exhibit to the prenup. He could not
specifically recall asking Wife if she wanted an attorney, but he introduced a letter to
his attorney dated May 1, 2008, in which he wrote, “Enclosed is the update of assets
and liabilities – I don’t think Bridget wants to use a lawyer.” The letter attached two
updated exhibits, which included changes to Wife’s assets and liabilities. Husband
testified that he would not have written the letter if he had not spoken to Wife about
the prenup and that he would not have known what Wife’s assets and liabilities were
without asking her.
{¶9} According to Husband, Wife applied online for a marriage license,
which was dated April 30, 2008. As of that date, they had not chosen a wedding date
or an officiant, as neither detail was listed on the marriage license. It was not until
May 1, 2028, or perhaps after that date, that Wife selected their wedding date. Once
Husband knew when they would be getting married, he contacted his attorney to
update the prenup.
{¶10} Husband admitted that he did not present the prenup to Wife until just
before their wedding ceremony. When asked why he waited, Husband responded, “It
could have been – we don’t live together. We probably didn’t see each other. . . . And
also I mean it had to be updated. The prenup had to be updated.”
{¶11} Describing the wedding, Husband said he and Wife were married at a
downtown office building, no friends or family were present, and a stranger served as
the witness. Afterwards, Husband and Wife ate lunch and dinner together and stayed
in a hotel for one or two nights. There was no formal reception or gathering.
{¶12} Husband also testified about his business interests as they related to the
prenup. Husband was clear that he had fully disclosed his interests and assets to Wife
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
in both the prenup itself and in conversations before their marriage. Husband
acquired stock in MBI in 1989, which gave him 16 percent ownership in that company.
He later acquired stock in MBC around 2000. During Husband’s first divorce, his ex-
wife (“Ex-Wife”) sought part of his ownership in MBC. To resolve the claim, he was
required to pay Ex-Wife a portion of the proceeds upon the sale of MBC. Husband
told Wife about Ex-Wife’s claim, as he began dating Wife during his first divorce and
often confided in her.
{¶13} Wife largely confirmed Husband’s testimony about the details of the
wedding and how the prenup was signed. Wife agreed that they obtained an online
marriage license, had a stranger witness their vows, and did not have a wedding
reception. Wife hired a justice of the peace to conduct the ceremony. Even though no
family or friends were in attendance, Wife did tell her loved ones that she and Husband
were getting married. To celebrate, her daughters ordered strawberries and wine to
be sent to Husband and Wife’s hotel room after the ceremony, and one of them came
to town from college afterwards. Wife also spent money boarding her dog while she
and Husband stayed in the hotel.
{¶14} Wife testified that she knew nothing about the prenup until Husband
gave it to her on the drive to the wedding, which left her shocked and unable to think
straight. She could not remember if she signed the prenup before or after the
ceremony and did not remember reading the entire document.2 However, she
acknowledged signing the prenup and initialing each page. She also admitted that two
provisions had been crossed out and initialed.
{¶15} Wife further testified that the exhibit attached to the prenup did not
2 This testimony conflicted with Wife’s statement at an earlier deposition that she had read the
entire prenup before signing it.
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
accurately reflect her assets and liabilities. In particular, the exhibit did not indicate
that she had sold her Mesa home the morning of the wedding. Wife also believed the
prenup omitted a significant liability of Husband’s. According to Wife, she did not
learn of Ex-Wife’s claim to Husband’s interest in MBC until November 4, 2018, well
after she married Husband. Wife also disputed that Husband had asked her whether
she wanted an attorney to review the document but admitted that she had been
through two previous divorces.
{¶16} During her testimony, Wife was asked why she did not reschedule the
wedding to have time to look over the prenup in more detail. She answered that she
was not in the right mindset to cancel or delay the wedding because she was in shock.
{¶17} After considering Husband’s and Wife’s testimony, the trial court found
the prenup to be valid and enforceable. In its April 5, 2024 entry, the trial court
concluded that there was no clear evidence the prenup had been procured by fraud,
duress, coercion, or overreaching. Instead, given the circumstances of Husband and
Wife’s wedding, it found that neither party would have faced significant hardship,
embarrassment, or emotional distress if the wedding had been postponed so that Wife
could review the prenup with an attorney. The trial court also cited Wife’s experience
navigating two prior divorces and the fact that the parties had fully disclosed their
assets and liabilities to one another before executing the prenup. It accordingly denied
Wife’s challenge to the prenup’s enforceability.
{¶18} The second issue the trial court considered in resolving the parties’
divorce was the division of Husband’s and Wife’s assets. The trial court conducted a
trial on November 1, 2024, and December 23, 2024, at which Husband and Wife both
testified. In addition, Husband called two financial witnesses—Mark Wernke and
Mallory Ashbrook.
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶19} Wife testified that she had worked as a news anchor prior to marrying
Husband and had since been actively engaged as a volunteer with domestic violence
prevention organizations. She decided to leave Husband in November of 2022. She
secured an apartment on April 21, 2023, and moved in on June 13, 2023. She waited
to leave because of finances.
{¶20} Wife was aware that Husband was a partial owner of MBI and MBC,
which were family businesses. According to Wife, the percentage of Husband’s
ownership interest in the companies changed in 2009, when Husband’s cousins and
co-owners retired. Wife was aware that there were 30 silver bars in a safe at Ironwood.
Husband indicated the silver bars were paid to MBC by one of its clients, but Wife
thought they were a personal investment. She admitted to testifying at an earlier
deposition that the bars came from a client of MBC’s as payment for its services. She
took 15 of the bars with her when she moved out of Ironwood.
{¶21} Wife also testified about Husband’s bank accounts. Husband deposited
funds into several different accounts at UBS bank. Wife had access to the UBS
accounts because she helped Husband set up online banking, and he never changed
the passwords. She was aware that one of the accounts—UBS account x6344—held
contributions to a defined benefit retirement plan established for Husband’s benefit.
{¶22} Husband also testified about his bank accounts, the silver bars, and his
ownership interests in MBI and MBC. As to the latter, Husband indicated that he
obtained approximately 57 shares in MBI in 1989 and acquired an interest in MBC
around 2000. At the time, two of his cousins held the remaining shares. When they
retired in 2009, the company purchased their shares and deposited them into the
company’s treasury fund. Although Husband’s ownership percentage increased as a
result, Husband testified that he never purchased or received additional shares.
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶23} In 2018, Husband sold MBI and deposited the proceeds of the sale into
various UBS bank accounts. Husband paid the tax liability for the sale of MBI from a
joint bank account he held with Wife. After the sale of MBI, Husband formed RM
Advisory Group (“RM”). RM agreed to provide brokerage services to the company that
purchased MBI for the next three years. For these services, RM would receive
$170,000 per year. Husband received income from RM from 2018 to 2021, which he
spent while he was married to Wife. Husband retired in 2021.
{¶24} As to the silver bars, Husband testified that MBC acquired about 30
100-ounce silver bars as payment from a customer. The bars were originally kept in a
company safe deposit box, but Husband eventually brought them home. He currently
had 15 bars in his possession.
{¶25} Regarding the UBS bank accounts, Husband testified that he
maintained UBS account x6344 in RM’s name as a defined benefit retirement account.
The account was funded with the proceeds of the sale of MBI and from RM’s brokerage
service fees. Wife had access to the statements for the account, knew RM contributed
to the account, and never expressed a concern about this arrangement.
{¶26} Husband also testified regarding UBS account x3670, a bank account
jointly held by Husband and Wife. According to Husband, on April 12, 2023, he
transferred 350 shares of META stock from a separate account into the joint UBS
account. He did this because, two months earlier, Wife began complaining that she
would not have any money if Husband died, and their arguments over this issue were
affecting the marriage. When he transferred the stock, Husband did not know Wife
was planning to leave him shortly thereafter. Had he known, he would not have made
the transfer. Husband transferred the stock back to his separate account after Wife
left Ironwood because he feared she would take it.
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶27} Mark Wernke, the accountant for Husband’s family businesses, testified
that Husband did not acquire additional shares in MBI after he married Wife.
Although Husband’s ownership percentage increased after Husband’s cousins retired,
the number of shares Husband owned in the company remained the same. When
pressed by Wife, Wernke could not discuss the documents he reviewed to reach this
conclusion because he owed a duty of confidentiality to clients other than Husband.
Nonetheless, he was certain the information was accurate.
{¶28} Mallory Ashbrook testified as an expert witness in tracing Husband’s
assets.3 Ashbrook is a certified public accountant specializing in financial forensics
and holds an inactive law license. After reviewing thousands of pages of bank
statements, Ashbrook prepared a detailed report that traced the funds in UBS
accounts x6371, x3670, x6344, and x6536. She testified to the percentages of separate
and marital property in each account. She also submitted a tracing schedule, reflecting
the percentages of Husband’s separate property in the UBS accounts.
{¶29} On March 21, 2025, the trial court issued a written decision dividing the
parties’ assets and liabilities according to the prenup. Regarding the parties’ assets,
the trial court determined that, for all assets except the META stock, the parties
separated on June 13, 2023—the day Wife moved out of Ironwood. Applying the
prenup, the trial court held that the proceeds from the sale of MBI and MBC and the
silver bars were Husband’s separate property. It agreed with Ashbrook’s expert
testimony, specifically finding her to be credible, and held that the percentages
Ashbrook identified as Husband’s separate property in the UBS accounts were indeed
his. As to the META stock transfer to UBS account x3670, the trial court determined
3 Wife did not call any experts to testify on her behalf.
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the date of division to be April 12, 2023, because Wife misrepresented her intentions
to induce Husband to make the transfer.
{¶30} Regarding the parties’ liabilities, Wife contended that Husband had
paid the tax liabilities for MBI and MBC from marital funds in the tax years 2012, 2015,
2016, 2017, and 2018. Wife accordingly argued that she was entitled to an equalization
payment under the prenup, as the agreement required liabilities on separate property
to remain separate. The trial court rejected this argument. Based on the testimony
presented at trial, it found that the companies’ taxes had been paid from Husband’s
income from the businesses and that Wife had agreed to assume the tax liability by
filing joint tax returns with Husband.
{¶31} The final issue the trial court resolved was spousal support. At the time
of the parties’ divorce, neither Husband nor Wife were employed. Both were of
retirement age and drawing Social Security. Husband’s monthly Social Security
exceeded Wife’s by approximately $2,000 per month, and he had greater assets on
hand to support his living expenses. The trial court accordingly ordered Husband to
pay Wife $3,000 per month until October 1, 2028.
{¶32} Wife appealed.
Analysis
{¶33} On appeal, Wife raises five assignments of error, arguing that the trial
court erred by (1) finding the prenup to be valid and enforceable, (2) finding the UBS
accounts to be primarily Husband’s separate property, (3) finding the silver bars to be
Husband’s separate property, (4) rejecting Wife’s claim that she was entitled to an
equalization payment for the taxes incurred for MBI and MBC, and (5) setting a
termination date for Wife’s spousal support.
11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
A. The Validity of the Prenup
{¶34} In Wife’s first assignment of error, she argues that the trial court erred
in upholding the validity of the parties’ prenup. She raises two specific issues that she
contends undermine the agreement’s enforceability. First, she argues that the prenup
was the product of coercion, as Husband presented it to her for the first time on the
day of their wedding without sufficient time for her input. Second, she contends that
Husband did not fully disclose his assets and liabilities, including his specific
ownership shares in MBI and MBC, and that as a result she lacked full knowledge and
understanding of Husband’s property before signing the agreement.
{¶35} It is well-settled in Ohio that public policy allows for the enforcement of
premarital agreements. Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St.3d 99 (1984), paragraph one of the
syllabus. These agreements are contracts subject to the general rules of contract
interpretation, as well as special rules governing prenups. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 68
Ohio St.3d 464, 467 (1994), citing 2 Williston on Contracts, Section 270B (3 Ed. 1959).
Under these principles, premarital agreements are enforceable “(1) if they have been
entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching; (2) if there was
full disclosure, or full knowledge, and understanding of the nature, value and extent
of the prospective spouse’s property; and, (3) if the terms do not promote or encourage
divorce or profiteering by divorce.” Gross at 105.
{¶36} An appellate court will uphold a trial court’s findings regarding the
validity of a prenuptial agreement if they are supported by competent evidence.
Downing v. Downing, 2023-Ohio-2673, ¶ 21 (1st Dist.). Moreover, we “indulge all
reasonable presumptions consistent with the record in favor of lower court decisions
on questions of law.” Fletcher at 468. We must affirm a trial court’s finding of validity
“if there is some evidence in the record to establish that the[se] elements have been
12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
satisfied,” and we “presume that the trial court believed the testimony that supported
the enforceability of the agreement.” Id.
1. Coercion and Overreaching
{¶37} Wife first takes issue with the trial court’s findings as to the absence of
coercion and overreaching. Coercion occurs when “one party is constrained by
subjugation to another to do what his free will would refuse.” Downing at ¶ 38.
Overreaching occurs when one party, “by artifice or cunning, or by significant disparity
to understand the nature of the transaction,” attempts to “outwit or cheat the other.”
Gross at 105.
{¶38} The trial court concluded that Wife signed the prenup voluntarily and
without coercion or cheating on Husband’s part based on a number of factual findings.
First, the trial court observed that Wife had been divorced twice before and therefore
had experience with the implications of property distribution. This finding was
supported by competent evidence, as Wife herself testified to her prior divorces. Next,
the trial court found that Wife could easily have postponed the wedding to seek legal
advice about the prenup. Husband and Wife had not expended money in furtherance
of a wedding ceremony or reception, outside of the cost of a hotel room, and had no
family or friends in attendance. This finding, too, was supported by evidence in the
record, as both Husband and Wife described their wedding as a simple affair witnessed
only by a stranger. Next, the trial court observed that Wife in fact had an opportunity
to review the prenup and make changes, as she and Husband crossed out two
provisions and initialed each modification. The parties entered the prenup into the
record, and it supports this finding—as it clearly reflects the parties’ edits to its
content. Finally, the trial court noted that the late presentation of the prenup on the
way to the wedding was not the product of any desire to pressure Wife on Husband’s
13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
part. Wife had not chosen the actual wedding date until very close to the day of the
ceremony, leaving Husband little time to draft the agreement with his attorney. This
factual finding is also supported by the evidence at trial, as Husband testified to the
timeline by which Wife applied for the online marriage license and later selected the
wedding date.4
{¶39} We cannot reweigh the evidence for and against the prenup’s validity.
See Downing, 2023-Ohio-2673, at ¶ 31 (1st Dist.). Because competent, credible
evidence supported the trial court’s factual findings that the prenup did not result from
coercion or overreaching, we reject Wife’s challenge to that aspect of the trial court’s
judgment
2. Lack of Disclosure
{¶40} Wife next argues that the prenup was invalid because it was
unsupported by full and accurate disclosures of the parties’ financial positions. She
advances three arguments in this regard. First, she contends that the exhibit to the
prenup that enumerated her assets and liabilities was inaccurate, because it contained
the Mesa home that she sold the morning of her marriage to Husband. Second, she
takes issue with the sufficiency of Husband’s disclosure of his ownership interest in
MBI and MBC. The prenup exhibit that listed Husband’s assets and liabilities
indicated that Husband owned an interest in both companies but set forth a monetary
value for those interests rather than the number of shares Husband owned in each
company or what percentage of each company Husband’s ownership interest
represented. Third, Wife contends that Husband failed to disclose his obligation to
4 Notably, the trial court specifically found Husband’s testimony to be credible. As the trial court was in the best position to observe the witnesses and assess their demeanor, we defer to the trial court’s determination as to credibility. See Tyra v. Griffith, 2025-Ohio-912, ¶ 40 (1st Dist.).
14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
pay Ex-Wife a portion of the proceeds of the MBC sale as a liability.
{¶41} The party challenging the validity of a prenup typically has the burden
of establishing that it was executed without full disclosure of the parties’ assets and
liabilities. Azarova v. Schmitt, 2007-Ohio-653, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). But where, as here,
the prenup provides the challenging party with disproportionately less than an
equitable distribution, the party claiming validity of the agreement has the burden of
proving full disclosure. Fletcher, 68 Ohio St.3d at 467. A party can prove full
disclosure by exhibiting an attachment to the agreement listing the parties’ assets or
by showing “there had been a full disclosure by other means.” Gross, 11 Ohio St.3d at
105. However, “the focus of the full-disclosure inquiry is whether a spouse has
concealed assets.” Azarova at ¶ 16.
{¶42} Full disclosure in the context of a premarital agreement need not be a
“drastically sweeping disclosure.” Heimann v. Heimann, 2022-Ohio-241, ¶ 33 (3d
Dist.). In other words, the spouse is not required to know the other spouse’s exact
means; a general idea of the person’s wealth and assets will do. Id.
{¶43} Applying these principles, the trial court rejected Wife’s contentions,
finding that both parties had made a full disclosure of their financial positions before
the prenup was signed. To the extent there were minor discrepancies between the
disclosed value of Husband’s and Wife’s assets and their actual value, the trial court
cited the provision in the prenup indicating the values were intended to be
approximate, not exact. The trial court also found that Husband frequently discussed
his financial status with Wife prior to the prenup.
{¶44} These findings are supported by competent, credible evidence. As to
Mesa, the prenup exhibit indicated that Mesa was both an asset and liability of Wife’s
and that she had accrued approximately $115,000 in equity in the property. This was
15 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
sufficient to disclose Wife’s interest in the property, whether she retained it or sold it.
Moreover, because the focus of the full disclosure requirement is to ensure that Wife
was aware of Husband’s assets, not her own, any discrepancies in Wife’s interest in
Mesa are immaterial to whether Wife voluntarily executed the prenup. See Azarova,
2007-Ohio-653, at ¶ 16 (1st Dist.). Wife surely knew the exact status of Mesa, whether
it was in the prenup or not.
{¶45} As to Husband’s alleged nondisclosure of Ex-Wife’s interest in the MBC
proceeds, the trial court discounted Wife’s testimony that she was unaware of the
details of Husband’s first divorce. To the contrary, the trial court made a factual
determination that Husband discussed his financial situation with Wife during the
period of his first divorce and further found Husband to be a credible witness. Those
findings were supported by the record. Moreover, the failure to include an
encumbrance to an asset, which leads to its overvaluation, is “not a concealment of
assets” and will not invalidate a prenuptial agreement. Azarova at ¶ 19-20. Thus, we
see no reason to depart from the trial court’s determination as to Husband’s liability
to Ex-Wife.
{¶46} Finally, with regard to Husband’s disclosure of his interests in MBI and
MBC, Wife offers no authority for the proposition that Husband was required to
disclose the number of shares or percentage of ownership, rather than the value of his
interest in the companies. And we can find none. Instead, with regard to the value of
a spouse’s business interest, courts have rejected the argument “some precise formula”
must be used to determine the value that must be disclosed on a prenup. See
Heimann, 2022-Ohio-241, at ¶ 39 (3d Dist.).
{¶47} Here, Husband and Wife had known each other for many years before
they were married, and they were married for many years. Husband frequently
16 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
discussed his financial affairs with Wife. Husband also disclosed the monetary value
of his interests in MBI and MBC in an exhibit attached to the prenup. Under these
circumstances, the trial court’s finding that Husband made full disclosure to Wife of
his assets and liabilities was supported by competent, credible evidence.
{¶48} We overrule Wife’s first assignment of error.
B. Husband’s Separate Property
{¶49} In Wife’s second and third assignments of error, she argues the trial
court erred by finding that the UBS accounts were primarily Husband’s separate
property and by finding that the silver bars were entirely Husband’s separate property.
Because these issues rely on common legal standards, we address them together.
{¶50} Generally, we review the appropriateness of a trial court’s division of
property in divorce proceedings for an abuse of discretion. Dunn v. Dunn, 2002-Ohio-
6247, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.), citing Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981). When an
appeal raises a factual issue as to whether specific property is marital or separate, we
apply either the sufficiency or manifest weight standard of review, depending on the
nature of the challenge. Carter v. Carter, 2024-Ohio-1046, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.). “In
reviewing a weight of the evidence challenge, we weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in
resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trial court clearly lost its way and created such
a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial
ordered.” Id. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we ask whether some evidence
exists on each element and whether the evidence on each element satisfies the burden
of persuasion. In re A.B., 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.).
{¶51} Wife does not specify whether she is challenging the trial court’s
property characterizations under a sufficiency or manifest weight standard. Thus, for
17 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the sake of completeness, where appropriate, we consider them both, along with
whether the trial court abused its discretion.
1. The MBI Sale Proceeds
{¶52} Wife first argues that the trial court erred in determining that the funds
contained in UBS accounts x6356, x6344, x6371, and x3670 were almost entirely
Husband’s separate assets.5 The trial court based its determination entirely on
Ashbrook’s testimony and her detailed tracing report, which concluded that nearly all
of the funds in the bank accounts originated from MBI and MBC. Because MBI and
MBC were identified on the exhibit to the prenup, the prenup labeled them as
Husband’s separate property. Ashbrook therefore merely followed the terms of the
prenup by tracing the income Husband derived from the businesses through the UBS
accounts. Given this information—the expert report and the prenup itself—the trial
court’s determination that the bank accounts largely belonged to Husband was
supported by sufficient evidence.
{¶53} Moving to the weight of the evidence, we note that Ashbrook’s testimony
was uncontroverted. Wife did not present any expert of her own, nor did she
meaningfully dispute Ashbrook’s testimony and report with any alternate accounting.
Instead, Wife argues that Ashbrook failed to take into account Husband’s inflated
ownership percentage of MBI and MBC after Husband’s cousins retired.
{¶54} According to Wife, Husband owned 15.5 percent of the family
businesses at the time of Husband and Wife’s marriage, but that percentage grew to
100 percent after the companies repurchased the cousins’ stock. She therefore
5 The trial court awarded 99.6 percent of the funds in UBS account x6536, 99.9 percent of the funds
in UBS account x6344, 99.7 percent of the funds in UBS account x6371, and the entirety of the funds in UBS account x3670 to Husband as his separate property.
18 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
contends that 84.5 percent of Husband’s ownership interest in MBI and MBC is
martial property, because it accrued after the parties were married. And on this
premise, she argues that Ashbrook erred in assuming that all of the funds attributable
to MBI and MBC were Husband’s, when 42.25 percent of them—half of 84.5—should
have been awarded to Wife.
{¶55} The trial court soundly rejected Wife’s argument. In particular, the trial
court noted that the prenup characterized both Husband’s interest in MBI and MBC
and any appreciation of that interest to be Husband’s separate property. The trial
court’s determination was supported by the express language of the prenup, as well as
the attached exhibit disclosing the monetary value of Husband’s ownership interest in
the companies. Moreover, both Husband and Wernke testified that, contrary to Wife’s
unsupported assertion, Husband did not acquire any additional stock after Husband’s
cousins retired. Rather, the companies repurchased the cousins’ shares. While the
value of Husband’s shares may have appreciated as a result, the prenup indicated that
the growth of a separate asset retained its separate character.
{¶56} Given this evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
awarding the proceeds of the MBI sale to Husband.
2. Account x6344
{¶57} Wife next argues that account x6344, a defined benefit retirement
account held in RM’s name, constituted marital property because it was funded with
proceeds from the RM brokerage agreement and because she did not agree to the
contributions. The trial court rejected Wife’s contentions. As to the brokerage
agreement, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that RM, not Husband, was
retained to provide services to the purchaser of MBI. Moreover, Ashbrook’s report
traced these funds directly to the sale of MBI. As to the deposits, Wife admitted that
19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
she was aware RM contributed to the retirement account. Sufficient evidence
therefore supported the trial court’s conclusion that UBS account x6344 was
Husband’s separate property.
3. Account x3670
{¶58} In her next issue, Wife challenges the trial court’s decision to apply an
earlier date of separation—April 12, 2023—to Husband’s transfer of META stock to
UBS account x3670. The trial court made this determination based on its conclusion
that Wife “improperly coerced Husband to transfer the META stock in an attempt to
turn the stock marital, solely so that she would be entitled to half when she left the
marriage.”
{¶59} “The domestic relations court may use alternative valuation dates to
achieve the equitable distribution of marital assets.” Berger v. Berger, 2004-Ohio-
5614, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.). It did so here. Husband testified that he transferred the stock at
Wife’s repeated suggestion because she feared not having sufficient financial support
if he were to die. Wife essentially admitted this was disingenuous, as she planned to
leave the marriage when she made the requests. This evidence was sufficient to
support the trial court’s finding that Wife separated from Husband on April 12, 2023,
when he transferred the META stock.
4. Account x6356
{¶60} Wife’s final argument about the UBS accounts pertains to account
x6356. Relying on Ashbrook’s report, the trial court found 99.6 percent of the funds
in the account to be Husband’s separate property. Wife contends—without presenting
any evidence of her own—that the account was too commingled to be traced as
separate property. We disagree.
{¶61} Separate property “retains its separate nature as long as it is traceable,
20 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
regardless of whether it has been commingled with other property.” Boolchand v.
Boolchand, 2020-Ohio-6951, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.). Here, Husband sufficiently traced the
funds in UBS account x6356 to his separate property through Ashbrook’s
uncontroverted report. In addition, Husband introduced thousands of pages of
financial statements to support Ashbrook’s account tracing. Ignoring this evidence,
Wife argues that Husband was unable to answer questions about the nature of several
deposits, including a $425,000 deposit from an unknown source and a $25,000
deposit from the joint account. But Husband’s lack of memory—understandable,
given that he was asked to recall years of financial dealings on the spot—is immaterial,
given that Ashbrook’s expert report explained the transactions.
{¶62} The trial court specifically found Ashbrook’s testimony and report to be
credible. On that basis, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
99.6 percent of account x6356 was Husband’s separate property.
C. Silver Bars
{¶63} In her third assignment of error, Wife argues that the trial court erred
in finding the silver bars to be Husband’s separate property. But the evidence
presented at trial supported the trial court’s conclusion. Husband testified that MBC
acquired the silver bars as payment from a customer, and the trial court specifically
found Husband to be credible. Given this evidence, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding the silver bars to Husband.
{¶64} We overrule Wife’s second and third assignments of error.
D. Equalization Payment
{¶65} In her fourth assignment of error, Wife argues that the trial court erred
in failing to order an equalization payment for the tax liabilities incurred by MBI and
MBC, which Wife contends were paid from marital funds, rather than by Husband’s
21 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
separate property as required by the prenup. We review the trial court’s division of
debt in a divorce for an abuse of discretion. Carter, 2024-Ohio-1046, at ¶ 13 (1st Dist.).
{¶66} Wife argues that the trial court erred by failing to classify the tax liability
for Husband’s businesses as separate debt. She argues that the parties paid $245,691
over the course of the marriage for taxes incurred on MBI and MBC dividends and
$423,821 for taxes owed on the sale of MBI. Because she claims these taxes were paid
with marital funds, Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
her an equalization payment for the portion of the taxes that were derived from her
share of marital property.
{¶67} Wife is correct that the prenup requires liability on separate property to
be paid from separate assets. In this regard, the prenup provides that “Any liability
attributable to either party’s separate property, whether presently existing or hereafter
accruing, shall be satisfied exclusively from and out of that party’s separate property.”
And Wife is correct that MBI and MBC were Husband’s separate property, so the tax
liabilities they accrued were required to be paid from separate assets belonging to
Husband.
{¶68} The problem for Wife is that they were. The testimony at trial
established that Husband earned an annual salary of approximately $51,000 a year
and that Wife was not gainfully employed. Yet the taxes paid for MBI and MBC totaled
close to $670,000 across five years—an average of $134,000 per tax year. Husband’s
marital wages were therefore woefully insufficient to cover the corporate taxes,
particularly considering that Husband’s income was the only means of providing
support for the parties’ living expenses. Husband and Wife’s tax returns back up this
conclusion. They reflect that the tax liabilities could only have been satisfied from
distributions from MBI and MBC—which were Husband’s separate property. This is
22 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
what the trial court concluded when it held that the businesses’ tax liabilities were
satisfied from Husband’s income.
{¶69} Given that the evidence presented at trial supported the trial court’s
application of the prenup provision requiring Husband to pay MBI’s and MBC’s tax
liabilities with his separate property, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Wife’s request for a distributive award. We overrule Wife’s fourth assignment
of error.
E. Spousal Support
{¶70} In her fifth and final assignment of error, Wife argues that the trial court
erred in terminating spousal support in 2028 rather than ordering Husband to pay it
indefinitely. We review the trial court’s order of spousal support for an abuse of
discretion. Reddy v. Reddy, 2015-Ohio-3368, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.).
{¶71} Pursuant to R.C. 3103.18(C)(1), a trial court may award spousal support
that is appropriate and reasonable. A trial court is not obligated to order spousal
support for an indefinite duration. See Dunn v. Dunn, 2002-Ohio-6247, ¶ 30 (1st
Dist.). To the contrary, a court may award an indefinite period of support “where (1)
the parties have been married for a long duration, (2) the parties are of an advanced
age, or (3) a spouse has been a homemaker who has had little opportunity to develop
meaningful employment outside the home.” Id., citing Kunkle v. Kunkle, 5 Ohio St.3d
64 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶72} In its order terminating spousal support on October 1, 2028, the trial
court specifically considered each factor in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), including the income
of the parties, their relative earning ability, the duration of the marriage, and Wife’s
employability. An additional and important consideration was Husband’s retirement
status. At the time of the divorce, Husband was of advanced age and unemployed. His
23 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
sole sources of income were Social Security and retirement savings. Wife, on the other
hand, was younger, had previously worked in broadcast journalism, and had
developed significant contacts in the domestic violence prevention community that
she could potentially leverage for gainful employment. Wife had also received interim
spousal support during the pendency of the divorce, as well as a lump-sum
equalization payment from Husband that approached $100,000.
{¶73} Under these circumstances, the trial court had broad discretion in
determining whether to award spousal support, and if so, its amount and duration. It
considered the required statutory factors and appropriately took into account the
parties’ ages and relative financial positions. No authority required the trial court to
mandate indefinite spousal support, and we cannot say that its decision to terminate
support after approximately three years was an abuse of discretion. We accordingly
overrule Wife’s fifth assignment of error.
Conclusion
{¶74} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing Husband and
Wife’s prenup, nor did it err in dividing the parties’ assets and liabilities according to
its terms. The trial court similarly did not abuse its discretion in terminating Wife’s
spousal support in 2028. We accordingly overrule Wife’s assignments of error and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS and BOCK, JJ., concur.