Buy This Entire Record For
Dach v. Homewood
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District
September 30, 2013
Kristin Dach, Plaintiff-Appellant,
David A. Homewood et al., Defendants-Appellees. Melody Daye Homewood, By and through her mother and next friend Kristin Dach, Plaintiff-Appellee, Kristin Dach et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
David A. Homewood, Defendant-Appellant, 2Checkout.com, Defendant-Appellee.
APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations C.P.C. No. 10DR-2706
Farlow and Associates, LLC, Beverly J. Farlow and Robert C. Petty, for appellant Kristin Dach.
Grossman Law Offices, Andrew S. Grossman and Jodi R. Smilack, for appellee David A. Homewood.
T. BRYANT, J.
(¶1} Plaintiff-appellant/appellee, Kristin Dach ("Dach"), filed a complaint for divorce from defendant-appellee/appellant, David A. Homewood ("Homewood") on June 21, 2010. The parties were married on June 1, 2004 and have one child together. After a lengthy trial, the trial court issued a judgment entry-decree of divorce on September 28, 2012, including a division of assets and resolving parenting issues. Dach filed a notice of appeal and raised the following assignments of error:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN RULING THAT THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND R.C. 3105.12(B)(1) PRECLUDE THE COURT FROM ADOPTING A DE FACTO DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PARTIES' MARRIAGE PURSUANT TO R.C. 3105.171.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DIVIDE THE MARITAL ESTATE EQUITABLY.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING TO INCLUDE HUSBAND'S ACTUAL INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING SUPPORT.
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT HAD A SEPARATE PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE JOINT UBS ACCOUNTS.
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT 2CHECKOUT.COM HAD A VALUE OF $12, 000, 000 IN 2004.
SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD ATTORNEYS FEES TO PLAINTIFF.
SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPUTED INCOME TO PLAINTIFF.
EIGHTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VALUE OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND ...