 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Martin2/23/2004
JUDGMENT: Judgment affirmed.
. Appellant, Donna M. Martin ("Donna") appeals the July 14, 2003 judgment entry and decree of divorce of the Common Pleas Court of Marion County awarding a 1985 Ford Ranger to James M. Martin Jr. ("James") and admitting and considering recommendations of the court-appointed investigator of Family Services.
. Donna and James were married on June 9, 1995. One child, Kendrah L. Martin, was born during the marriage, on August 1, 1996. The parties separated on March 17, 2002 and on March 27, 2002, Donna filed for divorce, alleging incompatibility as one of her grounds. James admitted incompatibility in his answer filed on April 25, 2002.
. The court ordered a referral in the case to Family Services Coordinators in June 2002. Home investigations were not conducted until November 2002 and a report was submitted to the court in December 2002. Both parties requested an examination of the Family Service Coordinator's report and both parties were granted the opportunity to examine it.
. Donna filed a shared parenting plan on March 7, 2003. James did not file a parenting plan or object to Donna's shared parenting plan. A discharge was granted in the parties' bankruptcy action prior to the final divorce hearing on June 27, 2003, which settled some of the issues of the parties' marital debt. After a trial on the issues of dividing marital assets and child custody, the court issued a judgment entry of divorce on July 14, 2003. It is from this judgment that Donna now appeals, asserting two assignments of error.
It was error on the part of the trial court to not set off the wife's separate property: to wit, 1985 Ford Ranger to her and then fail to give written findings of fact to support the court's decision pursuant to Revised Code 3105.171(D).
Error was committed by the trial court in admitting the report of the Family Court Services (Court Exhibit 1) over objection of counsel when the report was not current and violated Marion Family Court Rule 18.02 when it contained recommendations and not just investigation. See also Revised Code 3109.04(C).
. In her first assignment of error, Donna argues that a 1985 Ford Ranger was separate property given to Donna by her father and should not have been awarded to James. Donna asserts that the testimony by both her and her father proves that the vehicle was separate property belonging to Donna.
. Trial courts have broad discretion in determining the equitable distribution of property in divorce cases. Lust v. Lust, 3d Dist. No. 16-02-04, 2002-Ohio-3629, 2002 WL 1593744; Bisker v. Bisker (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 608, 635 N.E.2d 308. The overall appropriateness of a property division is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Martin v. Martin (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 292, 480 N.E.2d 1112. Abuse of discretion implies that the court's attitude in making a decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
. Pursuant to R.C. 3105.171, " n divorce proceedings, the court shall, * * * determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. In either case, upon making such a determination, the court shall divide the martial and separate property equitably between the spouses, in accordance with this section." "Marital property" is defined in R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a) and is further defined in R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(b) as not including any separate property. "Separate property" is defined as "all real and personal property and any interest in real or personal property that is found
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|