• About
    • Attorneys
    • Affiliations
    • Press
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
  • Family Law
    • Child Support
    • Child Custody Attorney
      • Child Custody Litigation Cases – Multiple States
    • Dissolution
    • Divorce
    • Domestic Relations Appeals
    • Family Mediation and Arbitration
    • Same Sex Relations Issues – Domestic Partnerships
    • Spousal Support Cases
  • International Family Law
    • International Child Abduction
    • International Divorce
    • The Hague Convention
  • Resource Center
    • Child Custody FAQs
    • Divorce FAQs
  • Gary’s Blog
  • Contact
  • About
    • Attorneys
    • Affiliations
    • Press
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
  • Family Law
    • Child Support
    • Child Custody Attorney
      • Child Custody Litigation Cases – Multiple States
    • Dissolution
    • Divorce
    • Domestic Relations Appeals
    • Family Mediation and Arbitration
    • Same Sex Relations Issues – Domestic Partnerships
    • Spousal Support Cases
  • International Family Law
    • International Child Abduction
    • International Divorce
    • The Hague Convention
  • Resource Center
    • Child Custody FAQs
    • Divorce FAQs
  • Gary’s Blog
  • Contact
Employer Benefits Count for Income in Calculating Child Support
October 16, 2013
Grandparents’ Rights – Fourth District Opinion Sets a Standard
November 25, 2013

In Reversing Sale, Trial Court Overstepped Its Authority

Published by Gary Gottfried at November 19, 2013
Categories
  • Divorce
  • Revised Code
Tags
  • Columbus
  • Delaware
  • Divorce
  • Franklin
  • marital asset
  • Ohio

The Fifth District recently issued an interesting decision on financial misconduct. The case is Shalash v Shalash, 2013-Ohio-5064 [PDF]. In that case, the husband purchased a carryout for $200,000.00 during the marriage. A few days after the divorce was filed the husband transferred the business to his Mother for $55,000.00. The Trial Court found that the carryout was a marital asset, and that the transaction was a “sham transaction”. The trial court ordered the business transferred to the wife. In reversing that portion of the case, the Fifth District held the following:

Under R.C. 3105.171(E)(4), the trial court has two remedies to compensate a spouse for the other spouse’s financial misconduct: (1) a distributive award or (2) a greater award of marital property. 1925 Express Business, Inc. [the carryout] was a marital asset through which Husband engaged in financial misconduct in disposing of that asset via sale to his Mother. Pursuant to the guidance of Albaugh and the limitations of R.C. 3105.171(E)(4), we find the trial court, in compensating Wife for Husband’s financial misconduct, should have considered the value of 1925 Express Business, Inc. as part of the marital estate, rather than vacating the sale of the business and granting Wife the ownership of the business. Ordering the transfer of the business from Mother to Wife was an inappropriate extension of the trial court’s authority in this case because the court had alternative remedies to utilize, such as the application of the financial misconduct statute. The trial court could award Wife a distributive award or a greater award of marital property from the total marital estate.

The business was located in Columbus, Ohio. If you have questions about how to properly preserve your assets in a family law case, please Contact Us today. If you have questions, please refer to our Frequently Asked Questions

Share
0
Gary Gottfried

Related posts

February 29, 2016

How to Split Child’s College Funds during Divorce


Read more
July 17, 2015

Changes to Spanish Law – International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers


Read more
November 11, 2014

Ohio Remains in the Headlines for Same-Sex Marriage & Divorce


Read more

Comments are closed.

Search The Blog

✕

Blog Categories

  • Bankruptcy
  • Child Abduction
  • Child Abuse
  • Child Custody
  • Child Support
  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Hague Convention
  • International Family Law
  • International Matters
  • Legal
  • Prenuptial Agreements
  • Reference
  • Revised Code
  • Same Sex Adoption
  • Same Sex Divorce
  • Uncategorized

Search Our Website

  • About
    • Attorneys
    • Affiliations
    • Press
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
  • Family Law
    • Child Support
    • Child Custody Attorney
      • Child Custody Litigation Cases – Multiple States
    • Dissolution
    • Divorce
    • Domestic Relations Appeals
    • Family Mediation and Arbitration
    • Same Sex Relations Issues – Domestic Partnerships
    • Spousal Support Cases
  • International Family Law
    • International Child Abduction
    • International Divorce
    • The Hague Convention
  • Resource Center
    • Child Custody FAQs
    • Divorce FAQs
  • Gary’s Blog
  • Contact

Reviews

“Gary J. Gottfried knows divorce law better than any other attorney that I do business with. I highly recommend Gary.”

– James Mowery, Esquire

Call Us Now: (614) 297-1211

Location

  • GARY J. GOTTFRIED CO. LPA
  • Family Law Attorneys
  • 608 Office Parkway, Suite B
  • Westerville, OH 43082
  • Phone 1 (614) 297-1211
  • Fax 1 (614) 297-6387

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter

Family Law

  • Child Custody
  • Child Support
  • Divorce Law
  • Dissolution
  • Domestic Relation Appeals
  • Family Mediation and Arbitration
  • Same Sex Relations Issues
  • Spousal Support Cases

International Family Law

  • International Divorce Law
  • International Family Law
  • International Child Abduction

Additional Family Law Information

  • Child Custody Litigation Cases – Multiple States
  • Information Needed for Divorce Consultations
  • The Hague Convention
© Gary J. Gottfried Co. LPA | Website Maintained by Archmore Business Web