But "[w]hen a party fails to provide the court with evidence as to the value of an item, the party may be found to have waived the right to appeal with regard to that asset." Smith v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-44, 80 N.E.3d 1091, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.), citing Roberts v. Roberts, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-27, 2008-Ohio-6121, ¶ 21; see Gregory v. Falcon, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2022 CA 00051, 2023-Ohio-1741, ¶ 30; see also Machesky v. Machesky, 4th Dist. Ross No. 10CA3172, 2011-Ohio-862, ¶12; Sieber v. Sieber, 2015-Ohio-2315, 37 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 34 (12th Dist). The limited record before us contains no evidence from Holmes of the debt.
Prior to making an equitable division, however, the domestic-relations court must assign a monetary value to all marital property, which is a factual issue. Sieber v. Sieber, 2015-Ohio-2315, 37 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 34 (12th Dist.). In civil cases, different standards of review apply depending on whether a party challenges the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence.
{¶ 6} In dividing property in a divorce proceeding, a trial court must first determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. Sieber v. Sieber, 2015-Ohio-2315, 37 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.), appeal not allowed, 144 Ohio St.3d 1458, 2016-Ohio-172. Marital property includes all real property that is currently owned by either or both of the spouses and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage.
{¶ 9} In her decision, the trial judge finally ruled that the transfer amount should include appreciation or depreciation on the transfer amount determined to be appellee's equalization share of the parties' retirement accounts after the December 31, 2009 valuation date. {¶ 10} In Sieber v. Sieber, 12th Dist., 2015-Ohio-2315, 37 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 75, the Twelfth District stated: With respect to retirement accounts, there is no controlling legal authority directing that any appreciation or depreciation in an account value between the date of judgement and the date of disbursement be shared equally between the spouses or, alternatively, directing that the benefit or loss go exclusively to the account-holder spouse.
Id. at ¶ 26. See also Eddington v. Eddington, 10th Dist. No. 14AP–572, 2015-Ohio-1233, 2015 WL 1432607, ¶ 8 (finding Heller “inapposite” where, in making a division of martial property, the trial court did not use the discounted present value of the husband's future share in company profits); Bohme v. Bohme, 2d Dist. No. 26021, 2015-Ohio-339, 2015 WL 408723, ¶ 28 (“Surely, if the business value were arrived at by using one of the other two methods of valuation—the market approach * * * or the asset approach—no one reasonably would assert that [the husband's] income [from a closely-held dental business] was counted twice.”); Sieber v. Sieber, 12th Dist., 2015-Ohio-2315, 37 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 57 (finding double-dipping argument “inapplicable” to trial court's property award of 50 percent of husband's stock in a company and spousal-support award of 40 percent of the husband's future shareholder distributions, where the husband's minority shareholder interest was valued using an asset-based method). {¶ 28} Second, “in the interest of equity, trial courts should factor the impact of double dipping into their property division and spousal support decisions.”