Skip to main content
· 2/6/2025

Hunter v. Troutman

Citations

  • 2025 Ohio 366

Syllabus

Divorce; abuse of discretion; financial misconduct; R.C. 3105.171(E); credibility; hidden or nondisclosed income; sale of personal residence; purchase of residence by spouse; attorney's fees; Dom.Rel.LocR. 21; plain error; admission of exhibits; time restrictions on cross-examination; marital property; manifest weight of the evidence; distributive award; spousal support; and R.C. 3105.18. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found plaintiff-appellant's hidden income constituted financial misconduct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the immediate sale of a personal residence when the house to be sold was encumbered with a mortgage, home equity line of credit, and foreclosure proceedings and both parties had alternate residences. Where two homes situated next door to each other were owned by the defendant-appellee, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the sale of one home rather than awarding it to plaintiff-appellant which would have resulted in her continued residence side-by-side with her ex-husband, his girlfriend, and their child. The trial court committed plain error by admitting into evidence an exhibit that was not presented at trial. The trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney's fees based upon an exhibit that was not part of the court record. Where defendant-appellee did not identify the evidence he was prevented from introducing due to the court's time limitations on cross-examination, defendant-appellee did not establish the trial court's time limitations amounted to an abuse of discretion. The trial court's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence established real estate holdings, vehicles, and businesses were not marital property subject to division. Subject to R.C. 3105.171(E)(4), defendant-appellee was entitled to a greater division of marital property or a distributive award but not both awards. Consideration of the R.C. 3105.

Judges: Forbes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.