Paterchak v. Paterchak

2013 Ohio 3043
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 12, 2013
Docket25383
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2013 Ohio 3043 (Paterchak v. Paterchak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paterchak v. Paterchak, 2013 Ohio 3043 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[Cite as Paterchak v. Paterchak, 2013-Ohio-3043.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

BRYAN S. PATERCHAK

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TAMMIE K. PATERCHAK

Defendant-Appellee

Appellate Case No. 25383

Trial Court Case No. 2009-DR-1006

(Civil Appeal from Common (Pleas Court - Domestic Relations) ...........

OPINION

Rendered on the 12th day of July, 2013.

...........

CHARLES D. LOWE, Atty. Reg. No. 0033209, 8087 Washington Village Drive, Suite 102, Dayton, Ohio 45458 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant

TERRY L. LEWIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0010324, 10 West Second Street, Suite 1100, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee

............. 2

WELBAUM, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Bryan Paterchak, appeals from a judgment and decree of

divorce allocating the assets and debts of Bryan and his wife, Tammie Paterchak. 1 Bryan

contends that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay the entire first and

second mortgage debts on the marital premises. Bryan further contends that the trial court erred

in requiring him to pay the entire Chase credit card debt.

{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the assets

and liabilities of the parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 3} Bryan and Tammie began living together around 1983 or 1984, and were

married in November 1992. Prior to the marriage, Bryan inherited $195,664 from his aunt. In

June 1990, Bryan purchased a home at 335 Enfield Road in Centerville, Ohio, for $108,750.

The property was titled solely in Bryan’s name. Bryan made a down payment of $55,259,

leaving a balance due of $53,491. Subsequently, in 2002, Bryan inherited $128,646 from his

mother.

{¶ 4} During the marriage, Tammie paid one-half of the house payment and also

contributed to household expenses. However, the parties kept their finances and credit card

accounts separate. Bryan was employed as a chef, and Tammie worked at bars. By all

accounts, they lived somewhat extravagantly, taking expensive vacations twice a year, buying

expensive jewelry and automobiles, and so on. At the time of the divorce hearing, Bryan earned

1 For purposes of convenience, we will refer to the parties by their first names. 3

about $30,000 per year, and Tammie earned approximately $16,000 annually.

{¶ 5} Bryan testified that he refinanced the home mortgage at some point to pay off

credit cards. Bryan did not provide the trial court with information about the amount of the

credit card debt, the identity of the credit card holders, or even the date of the mortgage to

National City Bank. Bryan indicated that he owed $117,581 on the National City Bank

mortgage at the time of the parties’ separation in February 2009, and that he owed $112,000 at

the time of the final divorce hearing, which was held on August 31, 2011.

{¶ 6} Bryan further testified that he took out a second mortgage to pay off credit cards.

He, again, did not furnish documentation indicating which credit cards were paid, to whom the

cards belonged, or what amounts were paid.

{¶ 7} In contrast, Tammie testified that she only became aware of what Bryan did with

his credit cards when he financed the second mortgage. She indicated that Bryan was going to

bars and strip clubs and was engaging in other similar activities. After Tammie saw a few credit

card statements, Bryan became very angry and would not let her see any of the financial

documents. The amount due on the second mortgage at the time of separation was $48,994.

{¶ 8} At the final divorce hearing, Bryan estimated that the value of the house was

$137,000. Thus, the property had a negative equity of $23,994.

{¶ 9} Bryan did submit his own credit card statements from Chase and Bank of

America, at of the time of the separation. The balance on the Chase card was approximately

$21,209. According to Bryan, the card was used to purchase things that he accumulated after a

fire at his home, because he did not have enough money for the interior of the house. Bryan

testified that the Chase card was used mostly for things that he lost. Both Bryan and Tammie 4

testified that Bryan received insurance checks to replace the furniture. However, Bryan failed to

submit any documentation indicating the amount of the insurance proceeds, nor did he provide

documentation establishing any specific amounts that were spent.

{¶ 10} The balance on the Bank of America credit card was $19,613.64. Again, Bryan

testified that this card was used to purchase things accumulated after the fire, but he failed to

submit any specific documentation to prove what items were purchased.

{¶ 11} A business was also started during the marriage. Tammie testified that “they”

decided to go into business and that Bryan said he would fund it. Tammie also said that she

agreed to pay him back. Bryan furnished $20,000, and Tammie paid him $2,000. According to

Tammie, Bryan then received about $6,000 from income taxes each year that he took solely for

himself. In contrast, Bryan testified that he never got the money back. He did not have Tammie

sign a promissory note, and neither side submitted any documentation in connection with this

matter.

{¶ 12} The only witness at the divorce hearing other than the parties was Tammie’s

father, Russell Dean. Dean testified about three Vanguard accounts that he had established on

Tammie’s behalf, as gifts. The first account was a Vanguard Growth and Income Account in

the names of Tammie and Dean as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. At the time of the

hearing, the value of the account was approximately $30,492. Dean started the fund for Tammie

approximately 15 years earlier, and the money came from Dean’s own earnings and investments.

{¶ 13} The second account was a Vanguard brokerage account, again in the names of

Dean and Tammie. Dean testified that he had also started this account about fifteen years

earlier, and that Tammie had never contributed any money to the account. Dean had taken 5

money out of the account at various times, but Tammie had never withdrawn funds. Dean stated

that he had established similar accounts for his son, for purposes of estate planning, so that the

money would automatically go to the surviving child. As of June 30, 2011, the amount in this

account was approximately $258,836. Dean testified that he had never told Tammie about this

account, and that to his knowledge, she only learned about the account during the divorce action.

{¶ 14} Finally, the third Vanguard account, an IRA, was one that Dean had established

for Tammie in the late 1970's. As with the other accounts, Tammie had never contributed; the

money solely came from Dean. This account was solely in Tammie’s name, and it contained

about $264,733 as of June 30, 2011.

{¶ 15} Tammie testified about another Vanguard account that her father had started for

her, by contributing about $3,000. She indicated that this account was in her name and in

Bryan’s name, and had grown to approximately $7,000 before the separation. Tammie claimed

that Bryan had closed this account and had taken all the money. She did not submit any

documentation regarding this account.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Raska v. Raska
2014 Ohio 5449 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ohio 3043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paterchak-v-paterchak-ohioctapp-2013.