Opinion
Case No. 2019 AP 04 0014
12-23-2019
AMANDA HEAVILIN FKA FILLMAN Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICHARD FILLMAN, JR. Defendant-Appellant
APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee PAUL HERVEY 4940 Munson Avenue N.W. Canton, OH 44718 For Defendant-Appellant MATTHEW A. PETIT 116 Cleveland Avenue N.W., Ste. #808 Canton, OH 44702 PATRICK J. WILLIAMS 300 E. Third Street, Ste. #1 Dover, OH 44662
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 2017 TM 11 0441 JUDGMENT: Affirmed APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee PAUL HERVEY
4940 Munson Avenue N.W.
Canton, OH 44718 For Defendant-Appellant MATTHEW A. PETIT
116 Cleveland Avenue N.W., Ste. #808
Canton, OH 44702 PATRICK J. WILLIAMS
300 E. Third Street, Ste. #1
Dover, OH 44662 Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant appeals the April 4, 2019 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which sustained, in part, and overruled, in part, his objections to the magistrate's October 31, 2018 decision, and adopted the magistrate's decision with modifications as the order of the court.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} Appellant Richard A. Fillman, Jr. ("Husband") and appellee Amanda R. Fillman, NKA Amanda R. Heavilin ("Wife") were married on November 22, 2003 and have three minor children. Wife filed a complaint for divorce on November 27, 2017. Husband filed a complaint for divorce under a different case number. The trial court subsequently consolidated the cases.
{¶3} The magistrate held hearings on the complaints for divorce on July 26, 2018 and September 21, 2018. A large portion of the hearing dealt with custody and visitation issues between the parties. Relevant to this appeal, the parties testified about their income and debts, and specifically Wife's student loan debt.
{¶4} Husband is employed as a police officer in Strasburg, making $3,033 per month and an additional $955.00 working shifts at Tusky every week. Husband graduated from high school in 1998 and, from 1998 to 2008, he worked on the farm and also worked for Wife's father, except in 2004 when Husband suffered a serious head injury and took a year off work. In 2008, Husband worked for the sheriff's department at the jail and then worked as a patrolman in Newcomerstown. From 2011 to 2016, Husband worked at Aleris World Products. In 2016, Husband took a pay cut to return to law enforcement. Husband testified he and Wife definitely lived beyond their means and had been in debt for quite a while. Husband wants to keep the marital home.
{¶5} Husband testified Wife went to graduate school for a master's degree towards the end of the marriage. Husband did not know where the school loans Wife took out went. Husband stated he did not receive a benefit from Wife's master's degree because they separated soon after. He has also received no benefit from her future earning potential. Husband agrees that approximately $29,500 of Wife's student loan debt was used for marital expenses.
{¶6} Wife currently lives with her mother and step-dad. Wife got her bachelor's degree before they got married and, during the marriage, went back to get her Master's Degree in Education. Wife started classes in 2012 and started taking out student loans at that time. After she obtained her master's degree in 2017, she became the site director at Newcomerstown Preschool. Wife testified there was no debt from student loans when she entered the marriage. After getting married, Wife subbed and then worked as a preschool aide until getting a full-time teaching position. As a result of the master's degree, Wife received a stipend to be the onsite director as well as the teacher. She could not have received this stipend if she did not have a graduate degree. Wife testified she and Husband discussed taking out more student loans to help pay for expenses. Wife stated the parties ended up using some of the student loan money, in the amount of $32,643, to pay off credit cards, pay the mortgage, purchase antique guns Husband wanted and buy an ATV Husband wanted that was ultimately traded in towards Husband's Jeep. The remainder of the funds, $25,210, covered educational expenses.
{¶7} Wife testified they had extensive debt during the marriage and were trying to use the student loan money to help get out of debt. The total taken out for student loans was $57,853; however, interest has been accruing. Wife stated her going back to school was a discussion she and Husband had together. Wife does not want spousal support if Husband is responsible for a portion of the student loans. Wife testified that without her degree, she would be making $10,000 less than Husband and the degree has improved her income approximately 25%, such that her income is now $50,000.
{¶8} The magistrate issued a decision on October 31, 2018. With regards to the student loan debt, the magistrate found: the total as of the date of the hearing was $88,733.26; both parties admit some portion of the student loans may have been used for normal household expenses or marital debts; the debt should primarily be allocated to Wife, but since some was used for household expenses, it is equitable to allocate some portion of the debt to Husband; and it is equitable for Husband to pay $16,321.50 of the student loan debt, which is one-half the amount refunded to the parties and used for household expenses. The balance of the student loan debt, $56,090.26, was allocated to Wife as marital debt. The magistrate ordered Wife to pay Husband $225.51 in child support. Additionally, the magistrate ordered Husband to make a distributive award to Wife of $37,439.03, $35,000 of which representing one-half of the equity in the marital residence and the balance equalizing the distribution to each party. Husband must pay Wife $50.00 per month towards his share of the student loan debt of $16,321.50 until it is paid in full.
{¶9} Attached to and incorporated into the magistrate's order is a division of debts and assets spreadsheet. Included in Husband's "debt" column is the $16,321.50 he was ordered to pay of Wife's student loans. Included in Wife's "debt" column is $72,411.76, the residue of the student loan debt not used for marital expenses ($56,090.26) and Wife's one-half of the student loan debt used for marital expenses ($16,321.50). The magistrate awarded Husband assets totaling $240,540.45 and allocated him debts totaling $206,981.50, for a net of $33,558.95. The magistrate awarded Wife assets totaling $117,668.68 and allocated her debts totaling $86,048.76, for a net of $31,619.92. The magistrate found that, in addition to the $35,000 in equity in the marital home, $1,939.03 is owed to Wife.
{¶10} Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision on November 9, 2018 and a supplemental memorandum in support of his objections on January 29, 2019. As to the student loan debt, Husband specifically argued that the magistrate erred in including the residue of the loan debt not used for marital expenses ($56,090.26) on the balance sheet as marital debt allocated to Wife. Husband contends the portion of the student loan not used for marital expenses should be assigned to Wife as separate debt and removed from the balance sheet. Husband also argues the magistrate intended that all but $32,643 of the student loans be allocated to Wife as separate debt.
{¶11} Wife filed her own objections to the magistrate's decision on November 19, 2018, arguing the trial court should not have allocated the balance of the debt to her because Husband benefited from her higher income.
{¶12} The trial court held a hearing on the parties' objections on January 29, 2019. The trial court issued a judgment entry sustaining in part and overruling in part the parties' objections to the magistrate's decision on April 4, 2019. The trial court found that even though student loans are considered marital debt pursuant to R.C. 3105.171 rather than separate debt, the court still has the ability to equitably divide that debt, including allocating the loan to the spouse who took out the loans and that the magistrate's recommended division of the parties' assets and liabilities, including the student loan, is fair and equitable. The trial court additionally found that while it was appropriate to allocate the majority of the loan to Wife since she was the primary beneficiary of the educational portion of the loan, it would be inequitable to remove the educational portion of the debt as a marital debt on the balance sheet because Husband also received a benefit from the portion used for educational purposes through tax credits and Wife's higher income for child support purposes. The trial court additionally ordered Husband to pay $200.00 per month to Wife toward his share of the student loan debt until the sum of $16,321.50 is paid in full.
{¶13} Husband appeals the April 4, 2019 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and assigns the following as error:
{¶14} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY TREATING THE TOTALITY OF APPELLEE'S STUDENT LOAN DEBT AS MARITAL DEBT.
{¶15} "II. EVEN IF THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN ALLOCATING APPELLEE'S STUDENT LOAN DEBT AS MARITAL DEBT, IT ERRED IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT NOT USED FOR MARITAL EXPENSES AS BEING $56,090.26."
I.
{¶16} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the trial court erred by treating the entire student loan debt as marital debt. Husband contends the balance of the student loans should be treated as Wife's separate debt, wholly allocated to her. As such, the $56,090.26 should not be included in the allocation of asset and division of liabilities spreadsheet because it is Wife's separate debt. Husband believes the inclusion of the $56,090.26 in the allocation of debt to Wife on the spreadsheet provides her with a windfall of debt to offset the assets awarded to Husband and she is unfairly compensated with assets.
{¶17} The Ohio Revised Code requires a trial court to "determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property." R.C. 3105.171(B). The court is then required to "divide the marital and separate property equitably between the spouses." Id. The Revised Code further instructs the trial court divide the marital property equally unless an equal division would be inequitable, in which case "the court shall not divide the marital property equally but instead shall divide it between the spouses in the manner the court determines equitable." R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). Although Ohio's divorce statues do not generally articulate debt as an element of marital and separate property, the rules concerning marital assets are usually applied to martial and separate debt as well. Cooper v. Cooper, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14 CA 100, 2015-Ohio-4048.
{¶18} In making a division of marital property and in determining whether to make and the amount of any distributive award under this section, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the assets and liabilities of the spouses; (3) the desirability of awarding the family home, or the right to reside in the family home for reasonable periods of time, to the spouse with custody of the children of the marriage; (4) the liquidity of the property to be distributed; (5) the economic desirability of retaining intact an asset or an interest in an asset; (6) the tax consequences of the property division upon the respective awards to be made to each spouse; (7) the costs of sale, if it is necessary that an asset be sold to effectuate an equitable distribution of property; (8) any division or disbursement of property made in a separation agreement that was voluntarily entered into by the spouses; (9) any retirement benefits of the spouses, excluding the social security benefits of a spouse except as may be relevant for purposes of dividing a public pension; (10) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable. O.R.C. 3105.171(F).
{¶19} Trial courts have "broad discretion to determine what property division is equitable in a divorce proceeding." Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 421 N.E.2d 1293 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. A trial court's decision allocating marital property and debt will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 597 (1989). In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶20} Student loans obtained by one spouse during the marriage may be categorized as marital debt subject to equal distribution. Harris v. Harris, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2006-CA-0003, 2007-Ohio-1323; Webb v. Webb, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA97-09-167, 1998 WL 820838 (Nov. 30, 1998); Shoenfelt v. Shoenfelt, 3rd Dist. Shelby No. 17-14-13, 2015-Ohio-225. Though a trial court may conclude the student loans are marital debt, the debt may properly be allocated to the party who incurs the debt. Id. "By removing the loans from the class of separate liabilities, the trial court is given the greatest power to enter an equitable division of the marital estate and allows the court to consider all of the circumstances surrounding the parties' positions when the loans were first taken out and at the time of the divorce." Webb v. Webb, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA97-09-167, 1998 WL 820838 (Nov. 30, 1998).
{¶21} Courts have considered different factors when determining the allocation of student loan debt. These factors include: when the income generated by the degree was realized; whether the spouse undertaking the degree was not working while obtaining the degree, thus depriving the family of additional income; and whether the student loans were used to pay for family expenses. Shoenfelt v. Shoenfelt, 3rd Dist. Shelby No. 17-14-13, 2015-Ohio-225.
{¶22} The trial court in this case allocated $16,321.50 of the student loan debt to Husband, and $16,321.50 to Wife. The balance of the student loan debt, $56,090.26, was allocated to Wife. The trial court awarded marital assets in the amount of $240,549.45 to Husband and $117,668.68 to Wife. In total, Husband was responsible for $206,981.50 in marital debt and Wife was responsible for $86,048.76. As a result, Wife netted $31,619.92 in marital assets, and Husband netted $33,567.95 in assets. The trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $1,939.03 to equalize the division.
{¶23} We first find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in classifying Wife's student loan debt as martial debt. Wife incurred the loans from June 2012 through January of 2017, during the marriage, and, at the time, were intended for the benefit of the marriage. Wife testified she and Husband decided together that she would go back to school and together decided to use the student loans to attempt to get out of debt. Wife worked the entire time she spent obtaining her degree and Husband reduced his income in 2016. She did not deprive the family of additional income and utilized the loans for family expenses. Wife testified the parties used some of the loan money to pay off credit cards, pay off the mortgage, purchase antique guns Husband wanted to buy, and buy an ATV that Husband wanted to buy. The fact that Husband never saw the economic fruition of Wife's additional education does not serve to transform the nature of the debt from marital debt to separate debt.
{¶24} We additionally find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in including the $56,090.26 in Wife's marital debt column on the spreadsheet. In making a division of marital property and determining whether to make and the amount of a distributive award, the assets and liabilities of each party is a factor to be considered by the trial court.
{¶25} Further, we find the inclusion of the amount on the spreadsheet does not unfairly provide Wife with a windfall of debt to offset the assets awarded to Husband, as evidenced by the facts in this case and the economic circumstances of the parties. Both Husband and Wife testified that they lived beyond their means during the marriage and had been in debt for quite a while. The loans were used to attempt to get the parties out of debt and kept the family out of bankruptcy during the marriage from 2012 to 2017. Husband is employed as a police officer and has the opportunity to work additional shifts as he does in Tusky every week. Husband gets to keep the marital home. He will receive child support from Wife each month and does not have to pay spousal support because Wife agreed not to seek it if Husband was responsible for a portion of the student loans. After she obtained her master's degree, Wife's salary is approximately $50,000. She is now the onsite director and teacher at a preschool. Wife testified she can only afford to make the minimum payment each month on the student loans and interest is accruing on the loans in the amount of approximately $4,000 per year. While Wife is paying large amounts of interest on her portion of the student loan and is accruing more interest each month, Husband gets to pay his portion of the student loans interest-free at a rate of $200 per month.
{¶26} The trial court has discretion when making an equitable division of the martial estate under R.C. 3105.171. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, we find the trial court did not abuse this discretion in equitably dividing the marital estate.
II.
{¶27} In his second assignment of error, Husband contends that, assuming the trial court did not err in classifying the loans as marital debt, the trial court erred in calculating the amount not used as marital expenses as $56,090.26. Specifically, Husband argues that the total student loan debt figure of $88,733.26 does not comport with the exhibits and that the trial court should only have divided the principal of the loan in assessing the loan as marital debt and should not have used the $56,090.26 figure because it included principal plus interest.
{¶28} Husband did not raise the argument regarding the alleged calculation error or the argument that the magistrate improperly used the $56,090.26 figure because it included principal plus interest in his objections to the magistrate's decision, nor did he object to the finding of fact of the magistrate that the total loan debt was $88,733.26 or that the residue of the loan debt after the $32,643 was removed was $56,090.26. In fact, Husband specifically uses these figures in his objections to the magistrate's decision. In his initial objections, Husband states that magistrate erred in "including the residue ($56,090.26) on the balance sheet as marital debt, allocated to Amanda Fillman" and argues "the portion of the educational expenses that were not used toward marital expenses (i.e. $56,090.26) should be assigned to Amanda Fillman as separate debt and removed from the parties' balance sheet." In his supplemental memorandum on objections, Husband states, "[t]he holding of the Court [magistrate] is proper in that it finds that $56,090.26 is to be allocated to Amanda Fillman. Where the Magistrate erred was in allocating the money as marital debt." In its judgment entry, the trial court characterized Husband's argument as "the Magistrate erred by including the entire amount of the educational portion of the student loan on the balance sheet as marital debt allocated to Amanda Heavilin. Richard Fillman argues that the portion of the education expenses that were not used towards marital expenses should be assigned to Amanda Heavilin as separate debt and removed from the parties' balance sheet."
{¶29} Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides, "[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)." Additionally, pursuant to Civil Rule 53, objections to a magistrate's decision must be specific. Washek v. Washek, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 18 CA 22, 2019-Ohio-1504.
{¶30} In this case, Husband's objections to the magistrate's decision raised issues that (1) the $56,090.26 should be assigned to Wife as separate debt instead of marital debt and (2) the $56,090.26 assigned to Wife should be removed from the marital debt balance sheet. Both of these issues are addressed in the first assignment of error. Accordingly, we will treat as waived Husband's present challenges concerning the magistrate's factual finding that the total amount of student loan debt was $88,733.26 and the residue amount was $56,090.26. We further find no basis to invoke the doctrine of plain error under these circumstances.
{¶31} Husband's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶32} Based on the foregoing, Husband's assignments of error are overruled.
{¶33} The April 4, 2019 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed. By Gwin, P.J., and Delaney, J., concur; Hoffman, J., dissents
/s/_________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
/s/_________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
/s/_________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY WSG:clw 1205 Hoffman, J., dissenting
{¶34} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
{¶35} I begin by quoting the old adage; "Numbers don't lie." But can they be skewed or misapplied to produce an inequitable result? I think, in this case, they were.
{¶36} Let me begin by stating my agreement with the majority's conclusion Wife's student loans were properly found to be marital debts. I further agree with the majority the fact Husband never saw the economic fruition of Wife's additional education does not serve to transform the nature of the debt from marital debt to separate debt. (Maj. Op. at ¶23). However, despite being a marital debt, this Court has previously recognized a trial court's treatment of one spouse's student loan as his or her separate property under such circumstances was not an abuse of discretion when the other spouse never saw the economic fruition of the other's college loan obligations. Cooper, supra at ¶52, citing Vonderhaar-Ketron v. Ketron, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 10CA22, 2010-Ohio-6593 at ¶36.
See my dissent opinion in Cooper v. Cooper, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14CA100, 2015-Ohio-4048 at ¶52.
{¶37} In addressing Wife's student loans, the magistrate found it was not equitable to equally divide the entire college loan debt, except for that portion admittedly used for household expenses ($32,643.00). This statement suggests to me the magistrate intended to "treat" some or all of the remaining portion of Wife's student loans ($56,090.26) as her separate debt. Yet, by including that remaining amount on Wife's side of the spreadsheet and using it as an offset against assets in its overall division of property, I maintain the magistrate treated it, albeit unintendedly, as marital debt in a manner that inequitably benefited Wife.
{¶38} I believe the magistrate's intended design was inadvertently skewed by the misapplication of the numbers on the spreadsheet, thereby resulting in an inequitable division of marital property.
{¶39} By way of illustration, I offer the following progressive hypothetical.
SCENARIO #1
{¶40} Assume Husband and Wife have marital assets of $300,000.00 and no debt. Further assume, the marital residence comprises $180,000.00 of the total marital assets, and Husband is awarded the house. Wife receives the other $120,000.00 of marital assets. To equalize the division, the trial court would order a distributive award of $30,000.00 from Husband to Wife.
SCENARIO #2
{¶41} Now further assume the parties have marital debt of $100,000.00. If the debt is assessed against each party equally, Husband's assets ($180,000.00) less one-half of the marital debt ($50,000.00) leaves him with net assets of $130,000.00. Wife assets ($120,000.00) less one-half of the marital debt ($50,000.00) leaves her net assets of $70,000.00. To equalize the division, the trial court would order a distributive award of $30,000.00 from Husband to Wife - the same distributive award as would be made had there been no marital debt.
SCENARIO #3
{¶42} But, now further assume the $100,000.00 debt was a result of student loans to the Wife, $40,000.00 of which the parties agreed was used for marital expenses. If the $40,000.00 portion of the total student loan was equally assessed against each party, but the remaining $60,000.00 is treated as Wife's separate debt, Husband's assets ($180,000.00) less one-half of the portion of Wife's student loans used for marital expenses ($40,000.00 / 2 = $20,000.00) leaves him with net assets of $160,000.00. Wife's assets ($120,000.00) less one-half of the portion of Wife's student loans used for marital expenses ($40,000.00 / 2 = $20,000.00) leaves her with net assets of $100,000.00. To equalize the division, the trial court would order a distributive award of $30,000.00 from Husband to Wife, the same as in the first two scenarios above.
{¶43} But here is where I believe the magistrate's intent was skewed by misapplication of the numbers.
SCENARIO #4
{¶44} In the scenario immediately preceding, consider the result if instead of treating the remaining $60,000.00 portion of Wife's student loans as her separate debt, the magistrate adds that amount to her side of the spreadsheet for purposes of calculation and division of the marital assets. Husband's assets ($180,000.00) less one-half of the portion of Wife's student loans used for marital expense ($40,000.00 / 2 = $20,000.00) leaves Husband with net assets of $160,000.00. Wife's assets ($120,000.00) less her one-half of the portion of Wife's student loans used for marital expenses ($40,000.00 / 2 = $20,000.00) plus the remaining $60,000.00 of the remaining student loan amount, together totaling $80,000.00, leaves Wife with net assets of $40,000.00. To equalize the division, the trial court would order a distributive award of $60,000.00 from Husband to Wife. When compared to the $30,000.00 distributive award calculated in the preceding three scenarios, in this scenario, Husband is required to double his distributive award to Wife to "equalize" their net assets as opposed to if the total $100,000.00 of Wife's student loans had been equally assessed to each party. The actual, although I believe unintended, effect is to treat the remaining $60,000.00 portion of Wife's student loans as Husband's, not Wife's, separate debt. I believe such is what happened in this case.
{¶45} In this case, the magistrate included not just the one-half of Wife's student loans used for martial expenses ($16,321.50) on the Wife's side of the spreadsheet, but the magistrate also added the remaining portion ($56,090.26) of the total debt amount ($88,733.26), for a total of $72,411.76, of the student loan being attributed to Wife's side of the spreadsheet. As demonstrated above, by so doing Husband was actually penalized because Wife was credited more than if her entire student loans had been assessed equally against the parties.
SUMMARY OF HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS
| SCENARIO #1$300,000.00 ASSETS - NO DEBT | |
| HUSBAND$180,000.00 (HOUSE) | WIFE$120,000.00 |
| DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD TO WIFE $30,000.00 | |
| SCENARIO #2$300,000.00 ASSETS - $100,000.00 DEBT | |
| HUSBAND$180,000.00 (HOUSE)- $50,000.00 (1/2 DEBT)$130,000 NET ASSETS | WIFE$120,000.00- $50,000.00 (1/2 DEBT)$70,000.00 NET ASSETS |
|---|---|
| DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD TO WIFE $30,000.00 | |
| SCENARIO #3$300,000.00 ASSETS - $100,000.00 WIFE'S STUDENT LOAN DEBT$40,000.00 OF STUDENT LOAN DEBT USED FOR MARITAL EXPENSESREMAINING PORTION $60,000.00 "TREATED" AS WIFE'S SEPARATE DEBT | |
| HUSBAND$180,000.00 (HOUSE)- $20,000.00 (1/2 OF $40,000.00)$160,000.00 NET ASSETS | WIFE$120,000.00- $20,000.00 (1/2 OF $40,000.00)$100,000.00 NET ASSETS |
| DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD TO WIFE $30,000.00(REMAINING PORTION OF $60,000.00 OF WIFE'S STUDENT LOAN DEBT WIFE'SSOLE RESPONSIBILITY) |
| SCENARIO #4(MAGISTRATE'S MISAPPLICATION) | |
| HUSBAND$180,000.00 (HOUSE)- $20,000.00 (1/2 OF $40,000.00)$160,000.00 NET ASSETS | WIFE$120,000.00$20,000.00 (1/2 OF $40,000.00)- $60,000.00 (REMAINDER OF WIFE'SSTUDENT LOANS)$40,000.00 NET ASSETS |
|---|---|
| DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD TO WIFE $60,000.00($30,000.00 MORE THAN HAD WIFE'S ENTIRE STUDENT LOAN BEEN EQUALLYASSESSED AGAINST BOTH PARTIES) |
{¶45} As the above hypothetical scenarios demonstrate, Husband is penalized by placing the entire remaining portion of Wife's student loan debt ($60,000.00) on her side of the spreadsheet.
{¶46} I turn now to the trial court's ruling on Husband's objections regarding Wife's student loans.
{¶47} In addressing Husband's objection, the trial court specifically referenced this Court's decision in Vonderhaar-Ketron, supra, and explicitly found:
FINDS that "[r]ighlty or wrongly, the allocation of student-loan debt that one spouse incurred during the marriage is often treated differently from other marital debt because of the unique nature of that debt." Polacheck v. Polacheck, 2013-Ohio-5788, 5 N.E.3d 1088, ¶24 (9th Dist.). "If one spouse incurs student-loan debt to obtain a degree near the end of the marriage, allocation of that debt is often driven by the assumption that the recently-
education spouse is leaving the marriage with increased earning capacity that is not divisible or of no benefit to the other spouse." Polacheck, at ¶25.
FINDS, upon review, that the Magistrate's recommended division of the parties' assets and liabilities, including the student loan, is fair and equitable.
FINDS that it is appropriate to allocate the majority of the student loan to Amanda Heavilin since she was the primary beneficiary of the education portion of this loan. However, it would be inequitable to remove the educational portion of this debt as a marital debt on the balance, sheet, as suggested by Richard Fillman, because he also received some benefit from the portions used for educational purposes through tax credits and Amanda Heavilin's higher income for child support.
{¶48} Despite the trial court's reference and findings noted above, the trial court approved what I believe he thought was the magistrate's "equal" division of Wife's student loans for two stated reasons: 1) Husband received some tax credit benefit, and 2) Wife's higher income was used for the amount of child support he will receive from Wife.
{¶49} Although I find neither rationale compelling for the reasons discussed below, I find the trial court's overruling of Husband's objection produced the same apparently inadvertent, yet nonetheless inequitable, result the magistrate made - the treatment of $56,090.26 of Wife's student loans as Husband's separate debt, not Wife's, and not an equal division of it.
{¶50} As to the trial court's reasons noted above, the evidence demonstrated the parties received a single tax credit of $1,596.00 from their 2016 income tax as the result of the student loans. (See Trial Exhibit 12). Both parties shared this past benefit and even if one-half was attributed to Husband, his separate benefit totaled only $798.00.
{¶51} As to the trial court's second justification, while it is true Wife's increased earing capacity increased her monthly child support obligation, this is not a division of property benefit to Husband. "Payment to a parent of child support is for the benefit of the child." Nelson v. Nelson (1998), 65 Ohio App.3d 800.
{¶52} I return to the old adage I began with: "Numbers don't lie." Perhaps I am the one who has skewered or misapplied the numbers. But it is my considered opinion I have not.
{¶53} For the foregoing reasons, I would sustain Husband's first assignment of error and remand the case to the trial court to recalculate and re-determine its division of property order.
Given my proposed disposition of Husband's first assignment of error, I would find his second assignment of error premature. --------