Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
NANCY L. STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ROBERT B. STRATTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-17-368178
E. Barrett, and James P. Reddy, for appellee.
B. Stratton, pro se.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
EILEEN KILBANE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
1} Robert and Nancy were married in September 1981. Two sons
were born as issue of their marriage, both of whom were
emancipated at the time of the divorce proceedings. In August
2017, Nancy filed a complaint for divorce. Robert filed his
answer, and the trial court scheduled the matter for trial in
2} Robert and Nancy agreed to submit the case to the trial
court to render its decision based on joint stipulations and
joint exhibits, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and a proposed judgment entry from each party. The joint
stipulations included retirement assets, checking and savings
account statements, joint credit card statements, a medical
reimbursement statement, information on COBRA health
insurance rates available to Nancy, and a Civil Protection
Order in effect until August 2019.
3} In September 2018, based on the joint stipulations and
joint exhibits, the trial court divided the marital property
and granted the divorce.
4} Robert now appeals, assigning the following 11 errors for
of Error One
judge failed to grant continuance so it could be determined
if [Nancy] needed a guardian appointed.
of Error Two
judge failed to delay trial so [Robert] could retain new
counsel when his counsel abruptly withdrew on July 25.
of Error Three
judge refused to require [Nancy] to provide [Robert] his
personal records so he could submit evidence and prepare his
of Error Four
judge refused to clarify whether the restraining order
required [Robert] to continue buying Marsh stock.
of Error Five
decision regarding the marital residence was not equitable
and totally ignored the housing situation of [Robert].
of Error Six
division of the retirement assets was not equitable
considering the health of [Nancy] and [Robert].
of Error Seven
was] plain error and an abuse of discretion in deciding the
marital credit card debt.
of Error Eight
was] plain error and an abuse of discretion in assigning the
entire student loan debt to [Robert].
of Error Nine
was] plain error and an abuse of discretion in dividing the
marital assets and the marital debt when looked at in the
of Error Ten
was] plain error and an abuse of discretion in considering
that [Robert] earned a professional degree during the
of Error Eleven
were] many plain errors in the budget report for 2018 and
special spousal support is arbitrary, unreasonable and an
abuse of discretion.