 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kerchenfaut v. Kerchenfaut9/5/2001
Appellee/Cross-Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not overruling the Magistrate's valuation of the parties' "Chilmark" pewter collection. When determining the value of marital assets, the trial court has broad discretion in weighing the evidence of value presented. Singer v. Singer (May 3, 1996), Defiance App. No. 4-95-17, unreported. "Rigid rules to determine value cannot be established, as equity depends on the totality of the circumstances." Webb v. Webb (2000), Marion Cty. App. No. 9-98-66, unreported, citing Briganti v. Briganti (1994), 9 Ohio St.3d 220, 221-222.
The Appellee/Cross Appellant argues that Magistrate's valuation was incorrect because she did not have enough information to assess the value of the pieces. If this was the case, surely the Magistrate is not to blame. Each party had ample time and opportunity to present evidence as to the value of the collection. As it was, the parties presented a list of the collection and it's approximate value. Furthermore they both testified to what they paid for it. The Magistrate based her decision on this evidence presented at the hearing. The law does not require the Magistrate to initiate an independent valuation of property that the parties have inadequately appraised and the fact that the Magistrate relied on evidence presented to her does not amount to abuse of discretion. The fifth assignment of error is overruled.
Finally, in his sixth assignment of error Appellee/Cross-Appellant argues that the court should have ordered the portion of the pewter that was determined to be marital property sold at public auction. Appellee/Cross-Appellant claims that this was the parties' expectation. If the parties wanted the Chilmark collection to be sold at public auction they should have come to such an agreement and stipulated as much to the court. The Magistrate and the Trial Court considered several such agreements made by the parties. Apparently, the parties could not agree on the matter for it was before the Magistrate to decide. Again, there was no abuse of discretion in the Magistrate's decision to award the collection to the Appellee/Cross Appellant. Accordingly, the sixth assignment of error is overruled.
The judgment of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas is therefore, AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
HADLEY and SHAW, JJ., concur.
|