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.

Degrant v. Degrant

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga

January 13, 2020

JENNIFER DEGRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARK DEGRANT, et al., Defendant-Appellee.

          Civil Appeals from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 DC 000999.

         Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

          Joseph G. Stafford and Nicole A. Cruz, Stafford Law Co., LPA, (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

          Alan H. Kraus, (For Defendant-Appellee).

          OPINION

          MATT LYNCH, J.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Jennifer DeGrant, appeals the Judgments of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, whereby the court issued a Decree of Divorce between her and defendant-appellee, Mark DeGrant, with respect to the issues of child custody, child support, spousal support, the division of marital property, and attorney fees, and whereby the court denied her Motion for New Trial. For the following reasons, we affirm in part the decision of the court below, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

         {¶2} On December 29, 2015. Jennifer filed a Complaint for Divorce with Motion for ex parte Temporary Restraining Order against Mark and TD Ameritrade, where it was averred the parties "maintain an account * * * which contains stocks, mutual funds, bonds and cash, the exact nature of which account is unknown to Plaintiff."

         {¶3} On February 1, 2016, TD Ameritrade filed an Answer.

         {¶4} On February 16, 2016, Mark filed an Answer and Counterclaim for Divorce, to which Jennifer replied on February 25, 2016.

         {¶5} Trial was held before a magistrate on the following dates: October 31, 2017; November 1, 2017; January 3-5, 2018; January 8, 2018; January 18, 2018; January 22-23, 2018; January 26, 2018; January 31, 2018; February 1, 2018; February 9, 2018; and February 12-13, 2018.

         {¶6} On June 25, 2018, a Magistrate's Decision was issued with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The magistrate made the following relevant findings and conclusions:

1. The parties [Mark, age 58, and Jennifer, age 42] were married on June 22, 2007, in Mayfield Hts., Ohio in a civil ceremony.
* * *
2. One child was born as issue of the marriage, [R.D.] * * *, born December 1, 2011.
* * *
11. "During the marriage" means July 22 [sic], 2007, to October 31, 2017. See R.C. 3105.171(A)(2).
12. Each party is entitled to a divorce from the other on the grounds of living separate and apart for over one year. See R.C. 3105.01.
* * *
14. Prior to filing for divorce, Plaintiff obtained an ex parte domestic violence civil protection order ("DV CPO") December 3, 201[5], naming Plaintiff and [R.D.] as protected parties and vacating Defendant from the marital residence.
15. After issuance of the ex parte order, Defendant did not see the child until a Magistrate Order, filed February 19, 2016, modified the ex parte CPO permitting Defendant to have supervised visitation.
16. Plaintiff dismissed the DV CPO on July 26, 2016.
17. On July 26, 2016, an Agreed Temporary Protection Order was filed in this case incorporating the terms of the modified DV CPO, including no contact between the parties.
* * *
70. After consideration of factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(2), this court finds Defendant's proposed shared parenting plan is in the best interest of the child.
* * *
80. Plaintiff has not been employed since January 2007, approximately six months before the parties' marriage.
* * *
85. Defendant has not been employed since 2006, approximately one year before the parties' marriage.
* * *
92. Plaintiff is voluntarily unemployed. Plaintiff is capable of earning at least $37, 000 per year.
93. For purposes of child support, Plaintiff is imputed annual income of $37, 000.00.
94. Defendant is voluntarily unemployed. Defendant is capable of earning at least $45, 000 per year.
95. For purposes of child support, Defendant is imputed annual income of $45, 000.00.
96. It is in the child's best interest for Defendant to pay child support to Plaintiff, in the sum of $545.62 per month, plus 2% processing fee. See R.C. 3119.23.
* * *
102. The parties have a joint checking account (5073) at Chase Bank.
103. Plaintiff has: (1) Citibank checking account (6865); and (2) Citibank savings account (4418).
104. Defendant has: (1) Chase checking account (5065); (2) Chase savings account (8934); (3) Bank of America checking account (0818); and (4) Bank of America Money Market account (4297).
105. Defendant opened his Bank of America checking and money market accounts prior to marriage.
106. Defendant has a TD Ameritrade investment account (3460).
107. Neither party testified to any current account balances.
108. Neither party had access to the other parties' accounts.
* * *
124. On July 27, 1993, Defendant purchased a residence at 8146 Boss Street, Vienna VA. The property was unencumbered by a mortgage. The residence was sold on May 31, 2009, resulting in net proceeds of $583, 865. The net proceeds were deposited into Defendant's TD Ameritrade account.
125. On April 28, 2006, Defendant purchased a residence at 809 Elden Street, Herndon VA for $1, 080, 146 (adjusted purchase price), subject to a mortgage of $600, 000. Defendant refinanced the mortgage once; Plaintiff had no part in the refinance. Plaintiff and Defendant resided in the house until its sale on October 21, 2010. The sale resulted in net proceeds of $161, 978.
126. Prior to marriage, Plaintiff owned a townhouse on Fontwell Drive, Sterling, Virginia. The property was encumbered by a mortgage. Plaintiff did not testify to the amount of the mortgage.
* * *
130. Plaintiff testified the townhouse sold for "tens of thousands of dollars" in 2013 or 2014. No evidence was provided of the amount or disposition of sale proceeds.
131. On October 27, 2012[1], the parties purchased the residence at 107 Ashleigh Drive[, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, ] for $1, 010, 000.00. A down payment of $333, 978 was made on the property from the following sources: a) $161, 978 from net proceeds of the sale of the Herndon property; b) $172, 000 from Defendant's TD Ameritrade account.
* * *
166. The parties' joint Chase account should be equally divided and closed.
167. Each party should retain the bank accounts in his or her own name.
168. Plaintiff should retain her TD Ameritrade IRA [a rollover from her former employer]. See R.C. 3105.171(A)(6)(a)(ii).
169. Defendant should retain his T Rowe Price IRA [a rollover 401k retirement account], Fidelity IRA [a rollover 401k retirement account], and TD Ameritrade IRA [premarital]. See R.C. 3105.171(A)(6)(a)(ii).
170. Plaintiff should receive 8.2% of Defendant's TD Ameritrade investment account (3460) within 30 days of journalization of the Judgment Entry. See R.C. 3105.171(A)(3).
171. The [Ashleigh] house should be immediately listed for sale with Adam Kaufman of Howard Hanna Realty.
* * *
180. Plaintiff should receive 5.81% of net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence and Defendant should receive the balance of net proceeds. See R.C. 3105.171(A)(3).
* * *
189. Plaintiff has a Citi credit card with a balance close to $31, 000 as of January 22, 2018.
* * *
200. Each party should pay credit card debt in their own names.
201. Plaintiff drives an unencumbered Porsche Cayenne purchased during the marriage. Defendant testified the vehicle's value is $22, 000. Defendant stipulated the vehicle is a marital asset.
202. Defendant drives an unencumbered Jeep, valued at $4, 000. Defendant stipulated the vehicle is a marital asset.
203. Each party should retain the vehicle in his or her possession. See R.C. ...

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.