John P. Fraim, III, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Elizabeth A. Fraim, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations (C.P.C. No. 09DR10-3902)
Edward F. Whipps and Associates, Edward F. Whipps and Jessica M. Wood, for appellee.
Wolinetz Law Offices, LLC, and Barry H. Wolinetz, for appellant.
(¶ 1} Since this case involves the second appeal to this court in a relatively short period of time that addresses issues relating to disposition of assets and liabilities, we will briefly trace the history, as our decision and remand in the first appeal is of major relevance in this appeal. In doing so, we will refer to Elizabeth A Fraim as "wife" and John P. Fraim, III, as "husband." (It would be confusing to refer to them as appellant or appellee because these identities change.)
(¶ 2} The first appeal was by husband asserting five errors of the trial court in ascertaining the value of assets and in the distribution thereof to wife and husband. The wife asserted a single cross-assignment of error pertaining to allocation of marital credit card debt, also relating to distribution of assets.
(¶ 3} In the first appeal, this court sustained husband's first assignment of error and wife's cross-assignment of error, vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions. Since the decision is short and to the point, we are attaching it as Appendix A.
(¶ 4} This appeal, the second appeal, is by the wife raising two assignments of error, both of which relate to the distribution of assets by the trial court to comply with this court's remand instructions.
(¶ 5} Those assignments of error are as follows:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT USE THE STIPULATED VALUE OF THE MARITAL UBS IRA RETIREMENT ACCOUNT #1568.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ALLOCATED APPELLEE'S UBS CREDIT LINE AS MARITAL PROPERTY AND NOT AS APPELLEE'S SEPARATE PROPERTY.
(¶ 6} While in essence wife agrees that it was within the discretion of the trial court to make the altered determinations, she asserts that the correction, in light of the trial court's prior holdings and stipulations, was not sufficiently explained, making the changes unjust and contrary to law.
(¶ 7} In order to consider the two assignments of error, it is important that we turn to our decision in the first appeal in regard to the intent of the trial court in arriving at the distribution of assets. In ...