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.

Davis v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga

May 14, 2018

SANDRA L. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES W. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08 DC 1389. Judgment: Affirmed.

          A. Pearce Leary, For Plaintiff-Appellee.

          A. Clifford Thornton, Jr., For Defendant-Appellant.

          OPINION

          THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.

         {¶1} Appellant, Charles W. Davis, appeals the trial court's June 16, 2017 decision ordering him to pay appellee, Sandra L. Davis, post-judgment interest following the parties' divorce. He also appeals the trial court's decision denying his request to refer Sandra for prosecution based on her alleged perjury during the hearing on interest. We affirm.

         {¶2} The trial court issued its final divorce decree on May 5, 2011, and following Charles' first appeal, we modified and affirmed the trial court's decision. Davis v. Davis, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3018, 2013-Ohio-211, ¶108.

         {¶3} In October of 2013, Sandra moved the court for statutory interest, under R.C. 1343.03, on her unpaid portion of the marital property division. She sought interest on the unpaid Smith Barney funds and the remaining balance owed to her on the equalization payment. Both amounts were to be paid by August 3, 2011.

         {¶4} The trial court granted Sandra's motion for interest on May 12, 2014 and noted that the motion was unopposed. This decision, however, did not determine the amount of interest Charles owed.

         {¶5} More than a year later, on August 24, 2015, Sandra moved to show cause as to why Charles should not be held in contempt based on his nonpayment of the interest pursuant to the court's May 12, 2014 decision. She claimed that Charles initially owed her $18, 812 in total interest and that she received one interest payment in the amount of $7, 139.60. Thus, Sandra sought the interest balance of $11, 672.

         {¶6} In a related entry, issued in November 2016, overruling Charles' objections to a magistrate's decision, the trial court limited the parties' arguments at the upcoming hearing on statutory interest, explaining:

         {¶7} "This Court has already determined that Plaintiff is entitled to statutory interest on the sums that Defendant was to pay her. That being said, Defendant is not precluded or prohibited from presenting evidence as to what he has already paid Plaintiff, nor is he precluded from presenting evidence regarding offers of payment that he has made to Plaintiff."

         {¶8} Charles opposed Sandra's claimed interest and argued that he offered Sandra the proceeds of two loans on the parties' Kinsman property, and had she taken this money, he would not owe her any additional statutory interest.

         {¶9} Following the December 30, 2016 evidentiary hearing on interest, the trial court rejected Charles' claim that his offers to pay Sandra a lump sum at two earlier dates reduced the amount of statutory interest. Instead, it held he owed $11, 670.40 in statutory interest.

         {¶10} Charles raises two assigned errors. His first assignment asserts:

         {¶11} "The trial court's finding that Appellant did not make a proper 'tender' to the appellee/wife and therefore the running of interest was not tolled is error as it is an abuse of discretion and against the manifest weight of the evidence."

         {¶12} Charles argues he should not be responsible for this $11, 670.40 interest award because he attempted to pay Sandra $150, 000 in November of 2010, and had she accepted this amount in 2010, he would owe no additional interest. He does not challenge the fact that the trial court awarded interest and does not otherwise dispute the ...


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.