Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Henderson v. Henderson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District

June 28, 2013

TROY H. HENDERSON, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ETHEL M. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellee.

Civil Appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 09D1229. Judgment: Affirmed.

Troy H. Henderson, Sr, pro se, (Plaintiff-Appellant).

Mary K. Bender, Mary K. Bender Co., L.P.A., (For Defendant-Appellee).

OPINION

COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Troy H. Henderson, Sr., appeals from the October 29, 2012 judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, adopting a magistrate's decision with respect to the division of certain property and debt as well as involving the issue of spousal support.

{¶2} Appellant and appellee, Ethel M. Henderson, were granted a divorce on September 29, 2010. On April 1, 2011, appellee filed a motion for relief from judgment alleging that the separation agreement attached to the September 2010 judgment did not dispose of certain assets and debts. The trial court granted appellee's motion. On March 21, 2012, the parties, who were each represented by counsel, entered into an agreement which provided that the September 2010 judgment would be vacated and held for naught, except for the granting of the divorce itself. The matter was set for an August 30, 2012 hearing.

{¶3} In the meantime, on July 24, 2012, appellant's attorney withdrew as counsel. On August 20, 2012, appellant filed a pro se motion to continue. The trial court denied appellant's motion indicating that he had previously sought and received continuances five times.

{¶4} A hearing was held before a magistrate on August 30, 2012. In her September 4, 2012 decision, the magistrate recommended a specific division of property and that appellant pay appellee spousal support in the amount of $1, 000 per month for 66 months. Appellant filed a pro se motion objecting to the magistrate's decision and requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law.

{¶5} On October 29, 2012, the trial court overruled appellant's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. Appellant filed a pro se appeal asserting the following 10 assignments of error for our review:

{¶6} "[1.] Trial Court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion in its determination of gross income by including Plaintiff-Appellant service connected disability benefits and Social Security disability income and not including Plaintiff-Appellant's cost of living expenses and then authorizing garnishment of Plaintiff-Appellant's service-connected disability benefits and Social Security disability income.

{¶7} "[2.] Trial Court erred and abused its discretion by denying and depriving Plaintiff of his Constitutional due process of rights, equal protection rights and rights to a fair and impartial trial by its determination in favor of Defendant-Appellee as creditable witness rather than holding Defendant-Appellee in contempt of court for perjury, falsification or at a minimum false representation before the Honorable Court and Magistrate.

{¶8} "[3.] Trial court abused its discretion by compelling and coercing Appellant to proceed as a self-represented litigant without a continuances for good cause and permitting Appellant's ex-attorney to withdraw three weeks prior to trial, in violation of Plaintiff-Appellant's Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 1, 2, 9, 10, and 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

{¶9} "[4.] Trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying Plaintiff-Appellant's motions for findings of fact, conclusion of laws and objection to Magistrate's decision.

{¶10} "[5.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion in its determination to extend alimony payments to Defendant-Appellee for another five and half years at an increased amount of money ($1000.00) after Appellant completed paying a previous alimony support order from 2008 to Defendant-Appellee for five and a half years.

{¶11} "[6.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion by its determination of failing to properly divide marital debts/liabilities and assets, and by its lack of determination for compensation to Plaintiff-Appellant for half of the marital assets that was in the possession of Defendant-Appellee and allegedly stolen and sold without compensation or consent by Plaintiff-Appellant.

{¶12} "[7.] Trial court erred and abused its discretion by finding Plaintiff-Appellant responsible for Defendant-Appellee's uncle and mother's $23, 000 dollar credit card debt acquired nearly thirteen years ago, prior to Appellant and Appellee's house fire in September 2000 and against the manifestation of evidence.

{¶13} "[8.] Trial Court erred and abused its discretion for failure to hold Defendant-Appellee and her attorney in contempt of court for obstructing official business, obstructing justice, perjury and false representation under oath with regards to Plaintiff-Appellant's military commissary card.

{¶14} "[9.] Trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion in its determination and division of assets and liabilities of Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant-Appellee during the duration of their marriage with regards to the recent fifty-seven thousand dollar judgment and lien against the Clark Road Home.

{¶15} "[10.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion for failing to calculate reasonable gross income for a license beautician in its determination due to Defendant-Appellee's little finger allegedly recently injured."

{¶16} In his first assignment of error, appellant's main argument is that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate's decision and determining his gross income for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.