 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lamb v. Lamb3/8/2002
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
This is an accelerated calendar appeal submitted on the briefs of the parties from the judgment entry of divorce issued by the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in which the trial court granted appellant, Larry R. Lamb, and appellee, Melinda Ann McDaniel Lamb, a divorce.
Appellant and appellee were married on December 29, 1990. The parties had one child born as issue of their marriage. After nine years of marriage, appellee filed a complaint for divorce on March 15, 2000.
This matter came on for a hearing before the trial court on October 31, 2000. After taking the matter under consideration, the trial court issued a judgment entry on February 2, 2001. In relevant part to this appeal, the trial court found as follows: (1) appellee was designated as the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child, and appellant was entitled to reasonable visitation; (2) appellant was ordered to pay child support in the sum of $553.31 per month and spousal support in the sum of $600 per month for thirty-six months; (3) the marital residence, valued at $115,000, was ordered to be sold and $5,000 was to be distributed to appellee with the balance from the sale proceeds then to be divided equally between the parties; (4) the Summit Federal Credit Union account, with a balance of $940, was divided equally between the parties.
It is from the February 2, 2001 decree of divorce appellant appeals, submitting three assignments of error for our consideration:
"[1.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it determined the value of the marital residence was $115,000.00.
"[2.] The trial court erred in granting appellee spousal support in the amount of $600.00 per month for 36 months.
"[3.] The trial court erred in finding the value of the Federal Credit Union [account] to be $940.00 and ordering that sum to be divided where the account balance is actually a deficient loan balance and not a positive account balance."
In the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it determined the value of the marital residence to be $115,000. According to appellant, there was only one uncontested appraisal, which valued the property at $151,000. From this, appellant concludes that there were no figures in the record to explain the $115,000 valuation assigned by the trial court. Rather, appellant believes that the trial court committed a clerical error as the numbers in the appraisal of $151,000 were erroneously transposed to $115,000.
In reviewing the trial court's determination of the value of marital property, an appellate court employs an abuse of discretion standard. Holcomb v. Holcomb (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 128; Berish v. Berish (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 319; James v. James (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 668, 681; Boyles v. Boyles (Oct. 5, 2001), Portage App. No. 2000-P-0072, unreported, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4520, at 6. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error in judgment; it implies the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
While appellee presents various reasons as to how the trial court could have arrived at the $115,000 figure, the court failed to explain how it assigned the value of the marital residence. Rather, the court merely stated the following:
"The marital residence, fair market value $115,000, shall be sold and after a return of $5,000 to [appellee], the payment of the mortgage and all costs of sale, the net proceeds shall be divided equally between t
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|