supreme ccum, nr nuin margui j. vie311gel, clerk apr 1 g … margui j. vie311gel, clerk supreme...

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Scott Wayland, 07 m 06 73Appe!lant, On Appeal from the Delawar-e

County Court of Appeals,v. Fifth Appellate District

Susannah Wayiand Court of AppealsCase No. 06 CAF 03 0015

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM iN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF APPELLANT SCOTT WAYLAND

Scott Wayland53 W. Mour -id StreetCanal Winchester OH 43110(614) 774-3766Fax No. (614) [email protected] Se

Milless, Charles K400 S Fifth StSuite 303Columbus Ohio 43215(614)464-0011Counsel For Appellee,

u

APR 1 g 2007

MARGUi J. ViE311GEL, CLERKSUPREME CCUm, nr nuin

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLICOR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIALCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION .. ......................................................3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ...........................................4

ARGUMENT in SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW .......................6

Proposition of Law No. t: Third party assets can not be divided underR.C. 3105.

Proposition of Law No. 1I: The court must consider the parties ability topay as well as their relative assets and liabilities under R.C. Chapter 3105

PROOF OF SERVICE ...... .............................. ............ ... ....... ............10

APPENDIX...........................................................................Appx. Page

Opinion of the 5T" District Court of Appeals ........................... ... ........ ......1

Judgment Entry of the Delaware County Court (2/6I2006)........

2

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OFPUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST AND

INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

This cause presents three crifical issues for the future of divorce in Ohio:

(1) whether volunteering at a public charity subjects that charity's assets to

division during the divorce of the volunteer, (2) whether a court's order of child

and spousal support should be reasonably related to income and ability to pay;

and (3) whether the equal protecx'son dause of the United States constitution

applies to the treatment of a pfaintiff in a divorce case.

In this case, the court of appeals included the assets of a third party

federal Charity in it's determination of divisible assets and conduded, therefore,

that the appellant/ husband was liable to split those assets with Appellee 1 wife.

The court of appeals also ruled that, the support amounts ordered were justified

even though the court failed to consider the parties ability to pay as required by

law. Finally, the court applied different standards to the mate than it applied to

the female in this case in violation of the equal protection clause of the US

Constitution.

The decision of the court of appeals threatens the structure of divorce

created by the General Assembly in R.C. Chapter 3105. By its ruling, the court of

appeals undermines legislative intent, ignores the plain meaning of the Act, and

creates its own unsupported view of what assets should be divided. Moreover,

the court of appeals' decision establishes the illogical and untenable rule that a

spouse can take property from an unrelated party with impunity. Finally, the

decision of the court of appeals supersedes Federal Law and lntemai Revenue

Code ({RC)_ These unprecedented inroads into charitable law offend the plain

language of the 3105, IRC, and the principles of constitutional governance. They

urgently need correction by this court.

3

The implications of the decision of the court of appeals affect every person

seeking divorce in Ohio, and touch thousar ►ds of public Charities in the state. The

public's interest in the orderly operation of federal charities is profoundly affected

by a holding that the regulations of charitable law are not binding on spouses

seeking divorce. Such a rule would sabotage the integrity of charitable

govemance, and undermine the fundamental principle that the rule of law

prevents the taking of property unrelated to the parties. Similarly, the public

interest is affected if the plain meaning of a statute duly adopted by the General

Assembly can be judicially altered to subvert the legislature's intent that the

division of assets and award of support be controlled by certain uniform

principles.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

This case arises from Appetlant husband's attempt to divorce his wife after

finding that she had taken $40,000 from their home equity account, wrote

thousands of dollars in checks to hersetf and attomeys, canceled husband's

credit cards, and after husband's finding of wife's divorce papers being prepared.

Husband quickly filed for divorce pro se to obtain pfaintiff status and then sought

an attomey to represent him_

Wife filed a motion to dismiss husband's case and sought to have her own

divorce case filed against husband_ The court declined her motion and

proceeded with the instant case. Wife then filed a list of assets that included a

claim of ownership interest in the husband's limited liability company (LLC),

Providence Acquisitions, as well as a claim of ownership in the two charities on

which husband served on the board of directors, Eagles Nest Riding Stables

(Eagles) as well as New Beginnings Animal Shelter (the Shelter).

4

The court divided the assets of the parties in such a way as to net the wife

$497,543 and the husband $-18,475 befQre extraordinary items and $577,043

and $-2,514,370 respectively after extraordinary items (ATTACHMENT A).

Clearly this is not equal protection under the law. Further the court made no

provision for the return of; or accounting for, husband's premarital assets and

awarded all to wife.

The parties were on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of the hearing.

Husband betieved. they had been swindfed on the investment real estate

purchased by Providence Acquisitions and this fact was noted in the trial courts

decision. The parties had used all their equity to purchase the investment real

estate and now found their personal house to be in foreclosure and negative

$79,000 in value, alt cash assets gone, tegat bills that could not be paid, and the

husband unemployed. The wife quit an $89,000 per year job at Eagles Nest in

favor of an $8 per hour receptionist job apparently in a(successfu!) bid to

minimize her income and maximize her support order_ Against this backdrop, the

court ordered the husband to pay $1,333_33 per month in spousal support and

$1212.16 per month in child support, for a combined monthly total of $2545.49.

The court clearly failed to take into consideration of the parties ability to pay as

required under case law (Gullia v. Gutlia Cuyahoga 1994 93 ohio App. 3d 653,

639 N.E.2d 822) or the parties relative assets and liabilities as required under

3105.18 (C) 1 (i).

5

In support of its position on these issues, the appellant presents the

ioiiowing argument.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF !AW

Proposition of Law No- t: 'Fleird party assets can not be divided under

R.C. 35u7.

Husband does not dispute that Providence Acquisitions is a marital asset

subject to division. Providence acquisitions was a reai estate investment

cor:3pan;^ ^,:^so b; Fhe ^:."vo :r;u.

The Shelter was a Federal 501 c3 chan.ty that was in negotiations to

become a tenant for whom Providence Acquisitions wouid purchase reat estate

and i°as'c- iI back t.^.dt3C', °v:7e^.:rer_ PrC'V:u.^.:1.â- °i.i'I:.s°..'v^n.s. a:. T•71e $neiter n€3V4r

C.n..^.$!:.^.;m.^..t°:i. $ de3l. T^`9 vh$lter':tv$ .^,. .^','e°memP°ar howrd.^,,fy

trustees. Appellant I husband was on the board of trustees serving a two year

term, and heid the position oi uirector oi voiunteers. Not surprisingiy when

•i._"App.°.:lee i :.`:fe :.^'.a-.'77e.^,. that u':e i:F°..::er r:3"4. .^.::;j=" "^ ,va:^1 of ., :Sn, $F:eSLnr:r

',?!!r$'.Sed the C,lat£','k of o'.°ri°r33'S*.'J of the L`.har:t!! and #.tte trial court never ruled on it.

Unlike the Shelter, Eagles began the fall of each year with almost half a

miilion doliars in the bank, whicn it totaiiy spent aown over the iofiowing 12

îlVi1 îJ. iii-vJV tultl^^ liatti^ iiV4S ittti V lie Vi £1fZ ai^,iPSI\ei^ !^s^Ylf^

i triRiTr3 ^rS , lu,t . VulVo: as ,s,

fL!:^.r2..:$inQ. and .^,.''iflr1t3h3° .^.,Cant$ 9.1aA8 hs ^hvrlf2Yi° nicri:?'..^ f::E:n^.^..ki.^.^S fr.^.'T2

around the United States. Eagles was a Federal 501c3 charity that was a tenant

that ieased reai estate from Providence Acquisitions_ Eagies wori<ed with

2...,U.,,,.. .,....^ a, ,c, ..,:5 y^.^,. ^, ,^.. y .. ..............

.8<rrR .ella;?t ^htiS.-,;'a;'sd :4'::$ c'.5 the hG'ard of }ru${°va$ $ur'1;;'?7 v{hraa e-°.^..C t°r:T: ^;1.4..

held the position of President.

6

Providence Acquisitions was at that time also in negotiations with another

charity to purchase land as a sale! leaseback investment. Appellee I wife was

never aware of it, and thus did not name it in her daims.

Charitable law predudes any part of a charity's net eamings to inure to the

benefit of any officer, director, trustee, manager, or individual with influence over

the organization (IRC §501(c)(3); Reg. §1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2)(ii) ). The Internal

Revenue Service takes the position that any amount of inurement is sufficient to

cause an organization to loose it's exemption_ As long as benefits do not inure to

an individual, it does not matter how many trustees there are for the organization;

even if it is just one trustee who controls everything (nationalist movement v.

commissioner 102T_C. 558 (1994), af'Brmed 37 F.3d 216 5"' Cir. 1994).

Payment of reasonable compensation for services rendered and use of

charity assets like telephone, cars etc does not constitute seff inurement when it

is comparable to what third parties would charge in an arms length arrangement

(Reg. §1.162- 7(b)(3)).

The trial court openly scoffed at Federal Charitable Law. In it's written

decision, the trial court demeans appellant f husband for his testimony regarding

intermediate sanctions for inurement. Specifically the magistrate writes in

regards to his desire to award a minivan which was a charitable asset to the

wife..- "From the husband's perspective, the van is property of the charity and al/

sorts of evil tax things will happen unless the wife retums the van" (emphasis

added). Those "evil tax things" were testified to as being °intermediate

sanctions". The Taxpayer SiI1 of Riqhfs ( f'ub L. No. 104-1E8, 110 Stat. 1452,

§311 July 30, 1996) enacted by the United States Congress added Section 4958

to the Tax Code. 495£ requires the return of any inured assets pius a 25%

excis° ta;< as usset c; si's cash va9ue is rt3t returned by the end

of #3ie taY. ^.!ear. there is an 'A'i.";ionaf '`'rslo hC.Y^& ej '_'er^°,^.± ( 7nn°.l-1 ff

the individual is an organization manager, there is another excise tax of an

adartionai 'i u % assessea.

7

Not withstand Congresses enactment of the "evil things", the magistrate

ordered the husband to take the minivan from the charity and awarded it to the

wife. Given the testimony about inurement and the magistrate's recognition of it

by calling it evil, one might anticipate that the court would not award third party

charitable property. Alarmingly though, the court ordered "The wife be awarded

the 2003 Dodge Caravan. The husband provide a means that the 2003 Dodge

Caravan can be transferred to the wife without tax or other penalty to the wife".

The courts order is in clear contravention of law and an abuse of discretion.

Further, the judge, upon reviewing the magistrate's decision decided to

give more charitable assets to the wife. Specifically the judge sought to split the

assets in the charity's investment account. The Judge apparently realized he

could not come out and order the taking of the cash so he achieved the same

end in a round about way. He ordered the Husband to make a one time

"equalization payment" of $40,792.50 to the wife. Not surprisingly that amount

was exactly haff of the money in the charity's investment account, down to the

penny ($81,585). Not withstanding the impropriety of that, the judge actually

blundered and used a two year old account statement to make that

determination. The actual amount in the account was $35,000 of which half

would have been approximately $17,500.

To be dear, the husband only had a grand total of $1,200 in his

checking/savings account. The only way the husband could make the above

payment was to take the money from the Federal Charity without authorization.

The court further awarded the charity's BMW vehide to the husband,

which the husband could of course not accept. The court also kindly allowed the

charity to keep it's other accounts.

On appeal the 5"' District Court of Appeals affirmed. lnexplicitly the

Appeals Court ruled "It is clear that the inter-relationship of the assets and debts

of Eagles Nest Ranch were required to be considered by the court°. There was

8

however no testimony regarding "inten-elationship° of assets. There are no

assets in common. The charity was simply a tenant, nothing more, nothing less.

As long as benefits do not inure to an individual, it does not matter how many

trustees there are for the organization; even if there were just one trustee who

controlled everything (Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner 102T.C. 558

(1994), affirmed 37 F.3d 216 5a' Cir. 1994). Note in the instant care the charity

had five trustees and no inurement.

Proposition of Law No. 11: The court must consider the parties ability

to pay as well as their relative assets and liabilities under R.C. Chapter

3501.

In dividing the assets and liabilities as well as setting support amounts the

courts decision was unconscionable. Referencing Attachment "A", it is clear that

the husband is left with less than nothing. He is appealing this decision Pro Se

because his attorney quit after the trial due to lack of payment. The attorney,

appeared at the appeal pro bono due to the manifest injustice of the award.

In Gullia v. Gullia Cuyahoga 1994 93 ohio App. 3d 653, 639 N.E.2d 822

the court ruled that awarding former wife approximately two thirds of marital

property while ordering husband to pay real estate tax delinquency, on marital

residence, alleged temporary support arrearage, and part of former wife's

attorney fees, and part of husbands girlfriend's attorney fees was abuse of

discretion where trial court failed to consider former husbands ability to pay the

obligations, which had decreased due to drop in income following his bankruptcy.

The trial court recognized that appellant / husband would be unable to

meet the obligation placed upon him when it restrained husbands only remaining

assets (retirement plan acoounts) and wrote °The court expects that the husband

may have to liquidate one or more of these assets and may do so to pay child

and spousal support. The husband may not do so for any other reason. The

court expects the husband to use these assets to remain current on child

9

support and spousal support" (emphasis added). Clearly the court realized

support payments would have to come from husband's retirement account not

current income. The court recognizes that husband had no income when it wrote

"the court has to keep in mind that the above analyses are dealing with 'funny

money'. Currently the parties have no income".

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, this case involves matters of public and great

general interest and a substantial constitutional question. The appellant requests

that this court accept jurisdiction in this case so that the important issues

presented will be reviewed on the merits.

Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of this Notice of Appeal was sent by ordinary U.S. mail tocounsel for Appellees, Charles K Milless, 400 S Fifth Street, $uite 303Columbus Ohio 43215 on April 16, 2007.

Pro Se

10

^kl+^C3^T `t A`1

Wayland v Wayland

AssetDistribution

iabilityDistribution

Equalization Pay to WifeDistribution Pay to Wife

Charles Schwab IRA $35,924Mainstay Retirement annuity $12,055GE 401k $35,200Chrysler 401 k $31,927Household fumishings $8,000Tax refund (filed separately) $11,688

HusbandHouse- Canal Winchester $5,000Charles Schwab $2,246GE Interest Plus $718Prov. Acq (bankrupt, note 1) $0Met Life Stock $422

Total: $143,180

Country Wide Balance (note 3)BankOne Balance (see note4)BankOne VisaUS Bank VisaChildrens Hospital

$0($78,301)($10,000)

($5,000)($1,563)

Totat: 94 864

($6,000)($40,792)

Total: B 792

Spousal Sup 11/05 to 3/06 ($6,666)Child Support 5/05 to 3/06 ($13,333)

Tota 1 99ws^

woDCB #1288 (see note 2) $49,000DCB #3086 $20,000Savings Bond $5,000Columbia Funds $2,396Stanley AVP 401 k $67,480Stanley Sup AVP 401k $18,630Valic Annuity $784Waddell-Reed $12,588Mainstay Retirement annuity $12,055Household fumishings $250,000Tax refund (filed separately) $2,819

Receive from HusbandReceive from Husband

Total: $440,752

Total: 000

Total:

Final Balance of Assets Plus Final Balance of Assets PlusLiability Distribution 18 475 Liability Distribution

Extra Ordinary(Bankruptcy Pending)

$6,000$40,792

Alspach Mortgage

Total of extra ordinary items: ($2,514,370)

$46,792

($2,434,370)Mcllrath (Alspach 2nd mortgage) ($400,000)Alspach Appraised Value $500,000Aispach Cost of Sale ($35,000)Alspach real estate fee owed ($110,000)Alspach Back Real Estate Tax ($35,000)

$497,543

Extra Ordinary(Wife took/sold husbands personal property)Tool Box and Tools $20,000Antique Table $10,000Antique Hall Tree $1,000Desk $5,000Leather Chair $3,500Collectable records(1000@$5-$80) $20,000

Total of extra ordinarv items: $59,500

Notes:(1) Providence Acquisitions has filed for bankruptcy with approx $3 million in debt assigned to husband(2) DCB account funded by wife's withdrawal of home equity from BankOne (see note 4)(3) Westerville house sold 9/2005 for a loss. Country Wide mortgage paid off; BankOne note upside down(4) BankOne balance converted to a personal debt, payable by husband.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO

CASE NO: 06 CAF 03 0015

SCOTT WAYLAND

vs

SUSANNAH M WAYLAN

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING BY ORDINARY MAIL(RULE 4.6 (D), OHIO CIVIL RULES)

I hereby certify that, pursuant to written instructions received by this Office fromthe attorney for Plaintiff/Defendant, I complied with said written instructions and mailedthe documents requested to be served to the following named person/persons at theaddress/addresses indicated, by ORDINARY UNITED STATES MAIL on this date:March 1, 2007

Document(s) mailed: OPINION/JUDGMENT ENTRY FIF'TH DISTRICT APPEALS COURT

ATTN:ANTHONY M HEALD125 NORTH SANDUSKY STREETDELAWARE, OHIO 43015

CHARLES K MILLESSONE AMERICANA BUILDING400 SOUTH FIFTH STREET STE 303COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

L

f7>t-x

=CD

^d

m cz

iTS^D

3mSUSANNAH M WAYLAND f

2745 E POWELL ROAD r ^^-LEWIS CENTER, OHIO 43035

QCA7

.C'm

C:)^s•^

DELAWARE COUNTY COMMON PLEASCOURTJUDGE (HAND DELIVERED)

DELAWARE COUNTY COMMON PLEASMAGISTRATE (HAND DELIVERED)

JAN A.NTONOPLOSWARE COUNTY CLERK

@„pEPUTY

COURT OF APPEALSDELAWARE COUNTY, OHIOFIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SCOTT WAYLAND . JUDGES:

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.

Hon. John F. Boggins, J.-vs-

Case No. 06CAF03015SUSANNAH M. WAYLAND

Defendant-Appellee 0 P I N 10 N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court ofCommon Pleas, Domestic Relations, CaseNo. 04DR-A-03-104

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED INPART AND REMANDED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appeilee:

ANTHONY M. HEALD CHARLES K. MILLESS125 North Sandusky Street One Americana BuildingDelaware, OH 43015 400 South Fifth Street, Ste. 303

Columbus, OH 43215

Court of AppealsDelaware Co., Ohio

I herc- ijy c-^>-tify tr:e within be a truec_°: v c' :?ie criginai on file in this office.

;,'.>.r. .^; . ^o ^los, Clerk of Courts^^ ^„^_Deputy

.--

Delaware County, Case No. 06CAF03015 2

Boggins, J.

{¶1} This matter is before this Court on the cross-appeal of Scott Wayland as

the initial appeal of Susannah M. Wayland did not proceed beyond her notice of appeal.

{72} Also, we have no responsive brief of Susannah M. Wayland to that of

Cross-Appellant, Scott Wayland.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{73} Scott and Susannah Wayland were married on July 22, 1989, with two

children resulting from the union.

{74} During the marriage, Scott Wayland (Scoff) held various executive

positions with different corporations. The final positibn prior to the divorce, except for a

personal venture, was with MacTools. Such corporation converted from an employee

based organization into a franchising structured business, thereby eliminating Scott's

position.

{¶5} Thereafter, Scott became involved with Providence Acquisitions, LLC and

the Eagle's Nest Ranch (Eagle).

{¶6} The latter was a charitable entity for troubled children.

.M7} Scott became president of Eagle which owned real estate but was

insufficient in actual cash. As a result, Scott was receiving no salary from Eagle.

{¶8} Scoff holds a Bachelor of Arts degree and a master's degree with

additional graduate studies.

{79} Susannah Wayland's (Susannah) education qualified her to teach in

Michigan, but she was not certified in Ohio. She was also employed by Eagle without

pay and held a receptionist's position for a time prior to the decree of divorce.


{¶10} During the marriage, the parties acquired substantial assets.

{¶11} This appeal arises from the magistrate's decision, as approved, relative to

division of assets, determination of income levels, spousal and child support and other

rulings.

{¶12} There are six Assignments of Error in this cross appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶13} "I. THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE CROSS-

APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO

INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE OBJECTIONS TO THE

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION FILED BY THE CROSS-APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND

THE CROSS-APPELLEEIWIFE AND IN FAILING TO RULE SPECIFICALLY ON THE

CROSS-APPELLANT/HUSBAND'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S

DECISION.

{714} "II. THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE CROSS-

APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO DIVIDE

THE PARTIES' ASSETS AND LIABILITIES IN AN EQUITABLE FASHION.

{715} "III. THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE CROSS-

APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IT'S [SIC]

DETERMINATION OF THE LEVEL OF INCOME THAT THE CROSS-

APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND CROSS-APPELLEE/WIFE SHOULD BE FOUND TO

MAKE.

{¶16} "IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE CROSS-

APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ESTABLISHING


SPOUSAL SUPPORT WITHOUT FIRST CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTORS AS SET

FORTH IN 3105.18 AND 3105.171 AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE NEED OF THE

COURT TO CONSIDER THE PARTIES' POSITION AFTER THE DIVISION OF

ASSETS BEFORE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF THE PROPERTY OF SPOUSAL

SUPPORT.

{117} "V. THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF CROSS-

APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE EXTENT THAT

THE COURT ATTEMPTED TO AWARD THIRD PARTY PROPERTY TO THE CROSS-

APPELLANT/WIFE.

{¶18} "VI. THE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE CROSS-

APPELLANT/HUSBAND AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO FOLLOW

VARIOUS FINPLAN AND OTHER TAX PROJECTIONS AND COMPUTATIONS TO

ARRIVE AT JUST SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS MADE IN

THIS CASE."

{¶19} Each of the Assignments of Error asserts an abuse of discretion by the

Court.

{¶20} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine that the trial

court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error

of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217. We must look

at the totality of the circumstances in the case sub judice and determine whether the

trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably.

Delaware County, Case rlo. 06CAF03015 5

{¶21 } The First Assignment of this cross-appeal references the objections made

by each party to the magistrate's decision.

{¶22} Since Susannah has not pursued her appeal, we are not concerned with

her objections.

{¶23} Civil Rule 53 provides in part:

{¶24} "(b) Action on magistrate's decision. Whether or not objections are timely

filed, a court may adopt or reject a magistrate's decision in whole or in part, with or

without modification. A court may hear a previously-referred matter, take additional

evidence, or return a matter to a magistrate.

{¶25} " * *

{126} "(d) Action on objections. If one or more objections to a magistrate's

decision are timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections. In ruling on objections,

the court shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain

that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied

the law. Before so ruling, the court may hear additional evidence but may refuse to do

so unless the objecting party demonstrates that the party could not, with reasonable

diligence, have produced that evidence for consideration by the magistrate.

{¶27} "(e) Entry of judgment or interim order by court. A court that adopts,

rejects, or modifies a magistrate's decision shall also enter a judgment or interim order.

{¶28} This Court has also ruled in Dorton v. Dorton (June 15, 2001), Ohio App. 5

Dist. Delaware App. No. OOCAF10029.


{129} "Pursuant to Rule 53(E)(4)(b) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial

'court may adopt, reject or modify the magistrate's decision...' In Addition, this Court

has previously ruled that a trial court is to make an independent analysis of the

Magistrate Decision. (See Rhoads v. Arfhur (June 30, 1999), Delaware App.. No.

98CAF10050, unreported)."

{¶30} The cross objections of Scott to the magistrate's decision were:

{131} "The 'income' used to set Child Support and Spousal Support is too high.

The earning ability that was found to be too high. Husband lost his job in February of

2002. Wife did not have a husband who earned $75,000.00 while most recently married

and should not profit by the divorce. Earning ability should be set at the amount that it

actually was prior to separation. To the extent that $75,000.00 is found as a proper

number for use in setting child support and spousal support, as suggested in paragraph

#13.15 on pages 17 through 24 and in paragraph #4 on page 31 the Husband objects.

{132} "To the extent that in paragraph #7 on page 32 relating to the Sale of

Marital residence that Husband is required to pay 100% of any loss from sale and

Husband objects to the same. Further, and additionally, since the evidence established

that Husband was on his third home at the time of marriage and the equity was brought

into the marriage by him he also objects for that not being found to be separate

property.

{¶33} "Husband objects to paragraphs #9, 10, 15 on pages 33 and 34 to the

extent that the Court is attempting to award third party property. It is respectfully

submitted that while the Husband does not object to the division of items as between

the Wife and Husband since these are third party property he must object to the same.


{¶34} "Husband object to paragraph #11 on page 33 in that he would like to

remove his personal property including family heirlooms (small table, hall tree, antique

radio, rocking chair, Gorham silver/crystal), tools and tool box, and contents of his office

including his work towards my doctoral degree, business documents, books.

{¶35} "Husband objects to paragraph #14 on page 34 relating to the Stanley

AVP plan value in that it is incorrectly stated as $67,000. The actual value is $90,000.

Further, to the extent-that there -is any negative equity in the sale of the residence

assets awarded to Wife should be restrained and used to pay off half of the home

negative equity at time of the sale of the marital residence in the same way that the

Court did that with assets awarded to the Husband.

{¶36} "Husband objects to paragraph #19 on page 36 relating to Spousal

support. The 'income' used to set Child Support and Spousal Support is too high. The

earning ability that was found is too high. Husband lost his job in February of 2002.

Husband did not earn $75,000.00 when the parties were living together immediately

before she filed for divorce and Wife should not profit by the divorce. Eaming ability

should be set at the amount that it actually was prior to separation."

{137} The substantial differences in the judge's review with the magistrate's

opinion, as acknowledged by Cross-Appellant indicate that the trial court has sufficiently

addressed the objections by an indication of an independent analysis as required by

Dorton v. Dorton, supra, and Civ. R. 53.

{¶38} Appellant's First Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.


I I

{¶39} The Second Assignment questions the trials court's division of assets and

liabilities.

{140} The applicable statute is R.C. §3105.171(F):

{¶41} "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:

{142} "(1) The duration of the marriage;

{143} "(2) The assets and liabilities of the spouses;

{144} "(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;

{745} "(4) The liquidity of the property to be distributed;

{146} "(5) The economic desirability of retaining intact an asset or an interest in

an asset;

{147} "(6) The tax consequences of the property division upon the respective

awards to be made to each spouse;

{¶48} "(7) The costs of sale, if it is necessary that an asset be sold to effectuate

an equitable distribution of property;

{149} "(8) Any division or disbursement of property made in a separation

agreement that was voluntarily entered into by the spouses;

{150} "(9) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and

equitable."


{¶51} A review of a trial court's division of marital property is governed by an

abuse of discretion standard. Martin v. Martin (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 292. We cannot

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless, when considering the totality of

the circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion. Holcomb v. Holcomb (1989),

44 Ohio St.3d 128.

{152} The trial court's property division should be viewed as a whole in

determining whether it has achieved an equitable and fair division. Briganti v. Briganti

(1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 220.

{153} Revised Code §3105.18 provides:

{154} "(A) As used in this section, "spousal support" means any payment or

payments to be made to a spouse or former spouse, or to a third party for the benefit of

a spouse or a former spouse, that is both for sustenance and for support of the spouse

or former spouse. "Spousal support" does not include any payment made to a spouse

or former spouse, or to a third party for the benefit of a spouse or former spouse, that is

made as part of a division or distribution of property or a distributive award under

section 3105.171 of the Revised Code.

{155} "(B) In divorce and legal separation proceedings, upon the request of

either party and after the court determines the division or disbursement of property

under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code, the court of common pleas may award

reasonable spousal support to either party. During the pendency of any divorce, or legal

separation proceeding, the court may award reasonable temporary spousal support to

either party.


{¶56} "An award of spousal support may be allowed in real or personal property,

or both, or by decreeing a sum of money, payable either in gross or by installments,

from future income or otherwise, as the court considers equitable.

{157} "Any award of spousal support made under this section shall terminate

upon the death of either party, unless the order containing the award expressly provides

otherwise.

{¶58} "(C)(1) In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and

reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment, and duration

of spousal support, which is payable either in gross or in installments, the court shall

consider all of the following factors:

{759} "(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not limited

to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section

3105.171 of the Revised Code;

{1160} "(b) The relative earning abilities of the parties;

{¶61} "(c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the

parties;

{162} "(d) The retirement benefits of the parties;

{¶63} "(e) The duration of the marriage;

{¶64} "(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that

party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the

home;

{165} "(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage;

{¶66} "(h) The relative extent of education of the parties;


{1167} "(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not limited

to any court-ordered payments by the parties;

{¶68} "(j) The contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning

ability of the other party, including, but not limited to, any party's contdbution to the

acquisition of a professional degree of the other party;

{169} "(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking

spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will

be qualified to obtain appropriate employment, provided the education, training, or job

experience, and employment is, in fact, sought;

{170} "(I) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal support;

{171} "(m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted from

that party's marital responsibilities;

{172} "(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and

equitable.

{¶73} "(2) In determining whether spousal support is reasonable and in

determining the amount and terms of payment of spousal support, each party shall be

considered to have contributed equally to the production of marital income.

{¶74} "(D) In an action brought solely for an order for legal separation under

section 3105.17 of the Revised Code, any continuing order for periodic payments of

money entered pursuant to this section is subject to further order of the court upon

changed circumstances of either party.

{¶75} "(E) If a continuing order for periodic payments of money as alimony is

entered in a divorce or dissolution of marriage action that is determined on or after


May 2, 1986, and before January 1, 1991, or if a continuing order for periodic payments

of money as spousal support is entered in a divorce or dissolution of marriage action

that is determined on or after January 1, 1991, the court that enters the decree of

divorce or dissolution of marriage does not have jurisdiction to modify the amount or

terms of the alimony or spousal support unless the court determines that the

circumstances of either party have changed and unless one of the following applies:

{¶76} "(1) In the case of a divorce, the decree or a separation agreement of the

parties to the divorce that is incorporated into the decree contains a provision

specifically authorizing the court to modify the amount or terms of alimony or spousal

support.

{¶77} "(2) In the case of a dissolution of marriage, the separation agreement that

is approved by the court and incorporated into the decree contains a provision

specifically authorizing the court to modify the amount or terms of alimony or spousal

support.

{¶78} "(F) For purposes of divisions (D) and (E) of this section, a change in the

circumstances of a party includes, but is not limited to, any increase or involuntary

decrease in the party's wages, salary, bonuses, living expenses, or medical expenses.

{179} "(G) If any person required to pay alimony under an order made or

modified by a court on or after December 1, 1986, and before January 1, 1991, or any

person required to pay spousal support under an order made or modified by a court on

or after January 1, 1991, is found in contempt of court for failure to make alimony or

spousal support payments under the order, the court that makes the finding, in addition

to any other penalty or remedy imposed, shall assess all court costs arising out of the


contempt proceeding against the person and shall require the person to pay any

reasonable attorney's fees of any adverse party, as determined by the court, that arose

in relation to the act of contempt."

{180} The magistrate's decision extensively reviewed the extremely complicated

assets, financial obligations and potential eamings of each of the parties over a 38-page

recommendation but contained several alternative scenarios.

{¶81} The trial court again reviewed the values and transactions extensively in

the Decree with the expressed intent at arriving at an equitable division of debts and

assets.

{182} The division of marital property and debts in this case was not equal but,

according to the trial court, was equitable. R.C. §3105.171(G) provides, in part, that the

court shall make written findings of fact that support the determination that the marital

property has been equitably divided. What is missing in the trial court's entry is an

explanation as to why the unequal division of debts is equitable.

{¶83} The Second Assignment is therefore sustained.

III, VI

{¶84} The Third and Sixth Assignments concerns the determination of the

potential earning ability of each of the parties and the resulting spousal and child

support. Neither was employed at the time of the Decree.

{185} This was an area in which the magistrate considered several possibilities.

Guidance was provided with the testimony of Mr. Oestreich. Cross-Appellant's range of

income was from $75,000 to $150,000.


{¶86} The wife's potential earnings were $20,000 with a possibility of $35,000 if

she became licensed as a teacher in Ohio.

{187} The trial court was required to order both spousal and child support

predicated upon this testimony. Obviously, with no present earnings, the past

employment history was of importance.

{¶88} We find no abuse of discretion in the court's order as to such respective

support obligations predicated upon the eamings projections provided in the evidence.

{¶89} Thus, the Third and Sixth Assignment are denied.

{¶90} We find that it is premature to decide the Fourth Assignment of error until

the trial court has responded to the remand of the First Assignment of Error.

V.

{¶91 } The Fifth Assighment concerns an assertion of the award of a third party's

property.

{¶92} It is clear that the inter-relationship of the assets and debts of Eagles Nest

Ranch were required to be considered by the magistrate and the court.

{¶93} The assertion by Cross-Appellant that catastrophic problems will result to

Eagle's Next Ranch, which is in a negative cash flow, is unsupported by any factual or

legal arguments.

{194} We find the Fifth Assignment to be without merit and is denied.


{195} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

By: Boggins, J.Edwards, J., concurs in partHoffman, P.J., concurs in part and

dissents in part

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS

Delaware County Appeais Case No. 06CAF03015 16

EDWARDS, J., CONCURRING IN PART

{q.96 } In regard to the first assignment of error, I concur with Judges

Boggins and Hoffman that a trial judge does not have to explain its rulings on

objections. It only has to indicate that it has ruled on each objection. I also

concur that an explicit ruling on each objection is not necessary as long as one

can tell by reading the court's decision that it did, in fact, rule on an objection. I

write separately only to indicate that the best practice for a trial court, especially

in a complex case such as the one sub judice, would be for it to indicate

specifically its ruling on each objection.

I concur with Judge Boggins as to his analysis and disposition of

the second, third, fourth and fifth assignments of error.

{1f:9a } I concur with Judge Boggins as to the disposition of the sixth

assignment of error.

JAE/rmn

Delaware County, Cu.,a No. 06CAF03015 i7

Hoffman, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

{199} I concur in the majority's disposition of cross-appellant's first

assignment of error. I write separately on this assignment to state I do not

interpret this Court's opinion in Dorton requires the trial court discuss or state its

reasons for its ruling on an objection. I further note the trial court expressly

overruled all other objections it did not otherwise address in modifying the

magistrate's recommendation at no. 25 of its February 6, 2006 Judgment Entry/

Decree of Divorce.

(1100)As to the majority's disposition of cross-appellant's second

assignment of error, I concur in part and dissent in part. Upon review of the

magistrate's 38 page decision, a number of questions remain unanswered

concerning the parties' involvement with Eagles Nest Ranch and Providence

Acquisitions, LLC. Cross-appellant asserts the trial court "skewed badly" the

marital balance sheet, in essence awarding cross-appellant all the debts and

economic risks the family faced, with no benefit to him (Cross-appellant's Brief at

p. 11). Cross-appellant asserts the net effect is cross-appellant acquired a debt

of $2,262,531.39, whereas cross-appellee acquired asserts worth $247,546.25

(Cross-appellant's Brief at p.11). Cross-appellant fails to elaborate or specify his

reasons why the trial court's disposition of Providence Acquisitions, LLC was

flawed and fails to make specific reference to those parts of the record where the

magistrate/trial court went wrong with regard thereto. Although my review of the

Magistrates Decision raises many concerns as to the treatment of the parties'

rights and obligations with respect to this failed venture, I find cross-appellant's

Delaware County, CG__- No. 06CAF03015 18

conclusory allegation of inequitable division of assets resulting therefrom

insufficient under App. R. 16(A)(7) to merit further review by this Court.

(¶'iol) Next, cross-appellant specifically contends the Stanley AVP Plan

awarded to cross-appellee was undervalued by approximately $23,000. Again,

cross-appellant fails to reference where in the record such undervaluation is

established. Cross-appellant fails to acknowledge the trial court did value the

Stanley Supplement Account Value Plan awarded to cross-appellee at

$18,630.21, which brings the total award to wife of the Stanley plan(s) within the

approximate range cross-appellant avers the trial court failed to do.

(11102) Cross-appellant also specifically challenges the trial court's

disposition of the marital residence as being inequitable because it ordered any

proceeds from its sale be split equally, yet ordered any and all remaining liability

assessed to cross-appellant if the sale resulted in a deficiency. I find such

disposition to be inconsistent and inequitable in the absence of a proffered

explanation for doing so, and would sustain cross-appellant's assignment of error

as it relates to the disposition of the martial residence.

{1?03)The last issue cross-appellant raises regarding the division of

marital property concerns the trial court's valuation (or lack thereof) of the

household goods. While cross-appellant references the record where he agreed

not to seek a future division of tangible personal property if he received a modest

amount, yet claims he received nothing, appellant fails to reference where in the

record an unfair valuation and/or division occurred. Again, such a conclusory

Delaware County, CG.,a No. 06CAF03015 19

allegation does not comply with App. R. 16 (A)(7). Accordingly, I would overrule

this portion of his assigned error.

{1104} I concur in the majority's analysis and disposition of cross-

appellant's third assignment of error.

{¶ios} I concur in judgment only with the majority's disposition of cross-

appellant's fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SCOTT WAYLAND

Plaintiff-Appellant

-vs-

SUSANNAH M. WAYLAND

JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellee CASE NO. 06CAF03015

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion

on file, the judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Costs assessed to

Cross-Appellant.

N. JOWN F.

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

/JULIE A. EDWARDS

0vPC7

p n -

zx

a^ r^e^z

^ -^^r.- 0 ^^0

cri

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO

Scott Wayland

Plaintiff,

V

Susannah M. Wayland

Defendant

4.'^

mnCase No: 0 DRA 03-10^ ^ ^ o

^c

-rr

co

^-^

r^, om7rQ

-'^?-i

MAGISTRATE'S DECPIO1..p^

•^O

sn rn

1. This matter came on for trial on March 2, March 3, March 4, March 8, and March

9, 2005.

2. Present were the Wife represented by Andrea R. Yagoda and the Husband

represented by Anthony M. Heald, Douglas R. Jennings representmg Eagles Nest Ranch and

Academy, and Timothy I. Flahive, Guardian Ad Litem.

3. The Parties were married on July 22, 1989 and separated on or about March,

2004. The Parties have two children:

Victoria (Torry), age 13, born June 21, 1991, and

Michael, age 9, born August 9, 1995

4. The Plamtiff filed a complaint for divorce on March 23, 2004 which was served

on the Defendant on . The Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim on April 1, 2004.

1

ti

5. The Plaintiff has been a resident of the State of Ohio for at least six months and a

resident of Delaware County, Ohio for at least ninety days immediately preceding the filing of

the complaint.

6. The Wife is age,4^ ate of birth July 3, 1964. At the inception of this case, the

LWife wasemployeed by Dr. Jeffrey Hudson as a receptionist and had been since September 13,

2004. The Wife was paid $12.00 per hour, 32 - 36 hours per week, $19,968 - $22,464 per year.

The Wife lost her eniployment for missing too many days due to the trial herein.

p7. The Husband is ag^'41, ^ate of birth November 5, 1963. The Husband is

employed by Eagles Nest Ranch as president. The Husband is also the sole member of

Providence Acquisitions LLC., which purchased the real estate located at 11641 Alspach Road,

Canal Winchester which is leased by Eagle's Nest Ranch and Academy.

8. Adjustments from the Parties' gross income and other factors used in computing

child support under Section 3113.215 of the Revised Code are as follows:

Spousal support paid

Child support paid

Other dependent children

Local Income Taxes

Mandatory Deductions fromEmployment

Extra F.I.C.A (5.6%) for Self-Employed

Wife: Husband:

paternity case in Florida,Ashley Plunkett, age 16

2% 2%

2

,

Ordinary and Necessary BusinessExpenses for Self-employed

Health insurance covering the children of Nationwide, $200.00 nonethis case per month for the

children

Work-related child care expenses $450.00 since noneSeptember; $140.00per week in thesununer for camp forMichael

Non-means tested benefits

9. The Parties own the residence located at 5549 Quail Hollow Way, Westerville,

Ohio. This property was/is the marital residence. The Parties purchased the residence on April

20, 2001. A foreclosure action was filed against the real estate on February 23, 2005. Wife's

Exhibit C indicates that the Wife made a payment of $4,421.80 on January 26, 2005 (per the

demand letter of Countrywide of December 17, 2004) and a payment of $2,185.90 on February

10, 2005. The Wife thought the payments had been accepted. The Wife also paid delinquent

real estate taxes of $4,070.38 on January 21, 2005. (The annual taxes are $8,140.76, $678.40 per

month). The Parties signed a listing with David Bower to sell the residence on Friday March 4,

2005. The listing price is $499,900.00.

Providence Acquisitions LLC., an LLC formed by the Husband and which has the

Husband as the sole niember, owns the real estate located at 11641 Alspach Road, Canal

Winchester. The Parties purchased this real estate on October 17, 2002 for $3,000,000.00 from

Liberty Christian Fellowship a 501(c)(3) Corporation whose principal is H. David McIlrath

This property consists of 47.455 acres. It is improved with a one story former residence which is

3

used as an office building. It also has classrooms, a large riding arena, a 40 stall barn, 145

outside covered stalls, pasture, lean-to shelters, and a pond. This property is the location of

Eagles Nest Academy, a 501(c)(3) Corporation.

A trust whose grantor, trustee, and beneficiary is the Husband purchased the residence

located at 53 West Mound Street, Canal Winchester, Ohio on March 26, 2004 for $184,000.00.

The sum of $11,000.00 was paid down on the purchase price. Of the $11,000.00, $6,000.00 was

paid from the GE Interest Plus Account and the balance of $5,000.00 was provided by the

Husband's father.

10. The Parties have the following motor vehicles:

Year and Make Title Possession Value

2003 Dodge Caravan Eagles Nest Wife

2004 BMW Z-4 Eagles Nest Husband

2000 Jeep Cherokee joint Husband, disposed 3/04

11. The Parties have the following items of intangible personal property:

DCB, checking account, Wife, #1288, $49,000.00, now $5,000.00

DCB, checking account, Wife, #3086

Charles Schwab, checking account, joint, #9843, $2,245.87 @ January 31, 2005Wife's Exhibit M is a collection of statements from this account with ending dates of October 31,2002, December 31, 2002, January 31, 2003, February 28, 2003, July 31, 2003, September 30,2003, October 31, 2003, November 30, 2003, December 31, 2003, January 31, 2004, February29, 2004, June 30, 2004, and January 31, 2005 presented in random order. These statementsare summar;zed as follows:

4

,

Schwab account, #9843, Scott Wayland and Suzannah Wayland, joint

Date Description Credit Deposit Balance10/31/02 - 1/31/05

10/9/02 Refinance Quail Hollow 9/30/02 73,517.79

10/31/02 Balance 126,602.45

12/14/02 Deposit of $101,497.39 in Schwab#0020, Eagle's Nest Ranch, CharitableDeduction of $101,672.61

12/30/02 Bank One Hon-ie Equity Line 12/19/02 123,062.50

12/31/02 Balance 142,901.93

1/31/03 Balance 143,546.72

2/28/03 Balance 138,348.52

7/2/03 Withdrawal to Providence AcquisitionsDeposited Providence AcquisitionsHNB account on 6/30/03, cleared Schaubon 7/2, see Exhibit Q, last tab

25,000.00

7/31/03

7/31/03

9/16/03

9/30/03

E LO/31-1Q3

10/31/03

11/30/03

Carlisle, Patchen, and Murphypaternity case

Balance

Carlisle, Patchen, and Murphy

Balance

cll^vt#ls One.^hes ^3auk C?ne liue

)^cfi'ibtt 1

#245Z, appea9rs to becrec3it, see Husbands:

Balance

Balance

4,000.00

76,497.77

4,000.00

51,625.91

E 25,00^;00 : s

36:2.09 OS

53,306.56

44,036.75

5

Schwab account, #9843, Scott Wayland and Suzannah Wayland, joint

Date Description Credit Deposit Balance

10/31/02 - 1/31/05

12/30/03 Life Insurance, Eagle's Nest reimbursed 3,440.00

12/31/03 Balance 40,810.91

1/9/04 Carlisle, Patchen, and Murphy (paternity) 1,658.07

1/14/04 Koch & Hatrington, paternity case 3,097.73

1/31/04 Balance 25,301.51

2/11/04. Koch & Harrington, paternity case 2,454.50

2/29/04 Balance 8,546.41<.Y.[.>sF...., ....d: s:a...5<.<.itr:.:... f..[ :.;

q.k.......[..4f.v. s: 3!.4: g3:$.:w' .c%:3h4...:...n.......L.F:: ^•::•r .. .... ::::f"£.:.i.. . r, ..... ...A. o-.. i.:,<::;:;:::iL.s.., ,x.:c3.,£:•:!:':.8:r:: :.%i:f.:$3...x ^q 3^3 ^

.. 4: ::::::S'3 >:.d:...: .. .:q,<..

..f'k.::.Y:<•.;r•.[::y:[::.,..r,..n:.: ....£.<l. .n.i^:•.Y:Litr t. ..:% .d,.. a ssvs[ir tr. •<. .s:a.A:..:,[...[.: r......id:.:^,o-,.r:f:%

.. . . .ni x' f...3u^k:..:4a '. rs k:.: . ^.F.. ...€.. Y..n..::^;:;r.:s.i. :.: ;^`:Y.F:...ayyi::.4yn:.._:s:'kkiii:c..diY[KH..).Gf^ eio-......

s i..ui :::... r:::[.::... 4.i:b..i...4.. ..3c:...^:,,:.: S..<.::.:..:':

:^;:x6..:.X^'^:.f:°).[.x..fry: '

. . . . .::•::x':k.g4.k...[xr....o-,..c..s..,`u

$ f'E^....,. .. ¢> .;,<. . . ^, x ...4..x....Y::: s...:.'^..:. 9.:.[:,r..^ ... : . .c f.%..,.. . s .. ..o-.o-.f .....i

6/30/04 Balance 2,241.87h 4'4.Hy... f

.gdfy.:r;.,%'.^^;".H:^ F3 '<l 3 s3 h 9^ ..fk4Hf4y#;;^^>Yf°'; 1'z-0' 2° s Y.3'g v:;i;V^n, ^^•£'i?.e[.x ^ :3 ' :.. . ..f^

..[•...; ..^% ..4 »^ks. ^.[ ..... ): :,

,.:J q.E..dn::L3: 4n:[°[':?;^,">;i.i:.°..•1.::. : .[:xAs.i..sii:F:[^i.Y.:.^:vi.i ai..r'.,.:E.E... .. . £...n..3.d.u ^FF,i,.,,< . .... [. . . f....&....

...: :.<:w.:a:».:[. i...x ...... .i..,,.4r..[.. r .. : r 4.:.$). .. .:,...f......v.s..o-..,:4. . .....^2

n: r. ::.. .

1/31/05 Balance 2,245.87

Canal Banking Center, checking account, Eagle's Nest Ranch and Academy, #7066, $2,000.00

GE, Interest Plus, savings account, Husband, $12,623.41 (9/25/03); $12,999.32 as of (3/25/04);$717.87 as of 9/24/04Wife's Exhibit G shows that the following withdrawals were made from this account:

Date Description Amt Husband's Explanation

3/26/04 3002 Chicago Title 6,000.00 down payment 53 West Mound

7/1/04 3003 Deborah Burks 550.00 repairs 53 W. Mound?

7/20/04 3004 Timothy I. Flahive 2,500.00 guardian ad litem

7/20/04 3005 Anthony M. Heald 3,000.00 Husband's attorney

7/30/04 3007 James Riggin 253.28 repairs 54 W. Mound

Savings Bond, Series I, Wife, 10/2001, face amount $5,000.00This bond is made out to Suzannah M. Wayland

Mail to:Clarence Beshke

6

4479 Bayberry Ct.Warren, Michigan 48092Or M. Scott Wayland

The Wife states that this bond was a Christmas gift from her grandfather. The Husband statesthat this bond was a Christmas gift "to both of us." (Wife's Exhibit F)

Charles Schwab, Eagles Nest Ranch, $81,585.00 (9/03)

Stanley Account Value Plan, $55,172.00 (4/4/02); $67,480.92 (12/27/04), Wife's Exhibit I

Stanley Suppleniental Account Value Plan, $15,533.00 (4/4/02); $18,630.21 (12/27/04),Wife's Exhibit I

Providence Acquisition LLC

1,000 shares SWK (Stanley Works), $35,000.00The Husband states that he thinks that these were stock options that were lost when hisemployment terminated. The Parties reviewed a letter dated November 11, 2002 fromthe Stanley Works and concluded that these options had been exercised and this asset has noremaining value. (Wife's Exhibit I).

Columbia Funds, joint, $2,395.98 (12/31/03); $2,421.45 as of 11/18/04 (Wife's Exhibit E)

AIG; Valic, Tax Sheltered Annuity, Wife, $749.97 (12/31/03); $783.70 as of 12/31/04 (W'ife'sExhibit 0)

NY Life (First Colony) ins., on life of Husband, face amount $4,000,000 (owned by Eagle'sNest Ranch and Academy, beneficiary Providence Acquisitions), see Exhibit S

Protective ins., on life of Wife, face amount $1,000,000, may only be $500,000 or $425,000

Met Life, ins., on life of Husband, face amount $260,000, cash value, $421.98 (12/31/02)(The Husband states that this policy lapsed in 1999)

Charles Schwab, IRA, Husband, $35,924.68 as of December 31, 2004. The Husband testifiedthat this may be a rollover from Allied Signal and Pepsi? (Wife's Exhibit L)

Waddell - Reed, (Berkley School District) 403(B), Wife, $12,588.54 as of June 30, 2004,(Wife's Exhibit N)

Mainstay, 403(B), Wife, $12,054.99 as of November 2004. The Wife withdrew this fund(This was put in by Eagle's Nest Ranch) (Wife's Exhibit P)

7

Mainstay, 403(B), Husband, $12,054.99 as of November 2004(This was put in by Eagle's Nest Ranch) (Wife's Exhibit P)

GE Savings and Security Plan, 401(k), $35,200.00, 12/31/03, Wife's Exlnbit H

Daimler Chrysler, SSP, $31,927.44, March 31, 2004 (Wife's Exhibit J)

Pepsi, ESOP, Merrill LynchThe Husband believes that this account was rolled into the Charles Schwab IRA. The Husbandbelieves that his interest in this account was forfeited upon his termination of employment.(Wife's Exhibit L)

Income Tax Refund, 2003, Husband, $11,688.00 deposited in HNB, checking account, in theHusband's name, #2453 on 4/28/04, see Wife's Exlu'bit T, last tab.

Income Tax Refund, 2003, Wife, $2,819.00

Providence Acquistions, LLC v Liberty Christian Fellowship

Eagles Nest Ranch and Academy, has lease on property where it conducts bingo,1258 Demerest Road, Columbus, Ohio. Husband guaranteed for 2 years

12. The Parties have the following debts:

Creditor Purpose of Debtor collateral

Balance MonthlyPayment

Countrywide Mortgage Home mortgage 381,556.83 (2/16) 2,081.81

Bank One Home Equity 84,699.47 (1/9) 916.01 -1,300.00

(The original amount of this line of credit was $126,000. After the deduction for fees etc,the sum of $123,063.50 was paid into the joint Schwab account on December 20, 2002. Priorto that on October 9, 2002, the proceeds of the refinance on Quail Hollow, $73,517.79, werepaid into the Schwab account. These deposits were to be used to fund a $200,000 downpayment originally required on the purchase of the Alspach Road property.

Regular payments were made on this line of credit from its inception on December 19, 2002until8/13/2003 when a $22,300.00 payment was made from Providence Acquisitions andon October 8, 2003 when a $25,000.00 payment was made from the joint Schwab account.Another $22,000.00 payment was made on January 2, 2004 and after the regular paymentin February of 2004, the balance was $51,234.62. On February 13, 2004, the Wife withdrew$40,000 from this account. On March 3, 2004, $30,000 was withdrawn from this account,making the balance owed $120,301.68. On March 30, 2004, the $30,000 withdrawn on March

8

3, 2004 was paid back, leaving a balance of $89,001.68. The balance of this loan was$83,860.95 as of February 4, 2004).

HNB first mortgage, Alspach 2,337,356.00 13,627.53 -Road, Eagles Nest, 18,000.00Providence Acquisitionsguaranteed by Parties

Dave McIlrath (former Alspach Road, guaranteed 400,000.00owner of property) (Liberty by HusbandChristian Fellowship)

US Bank

US Bank

US Bank

2004 BMW, guaranteed 40,524.00 584.24by Husband, lease

visa, joint (paid off) 1,800.00

visa, Husband, since 5,000.00separation, #401, Exhibit R

Children's Hospital . MRI for Michael 1,563.31

Bank One visa, Husband, since 10,000.00separation, #707

Bank One visa, Wife, #2092 10,000.00

George Washington back tuition 4,000.00

HNB Providence Acquisitions (85.00) or-18,000.00

(This is the normal monthly payment on the real estate loan on Alspach Road, listed above)

13. The issues in this case are as follows:

13.1 The disposition of the residence. The Parties have listed the marital residence for

sale for $499,900.00. Even if a contract for full price was entered into, the Parties would still

have to bring $6,348.30 to the table to close. If the property sold for $450,000.00, the Parties

would have negative equity of $52,256.30, calculated as follows:

9

Gross Sales Proceeds 499,900.00

Less cost of sale, 8% 39,992.00

Net Sale Proceeds 459,908.00

First Mortgage 381,556.83

Line of credit 84,699.47

Equity (6,348.30)

Gross Sales Proceeds 450,000.00

Less cost of sale, 8% 36,000.00

Net Sale Proceeds 414,000.00

First Mortgage 381,556.83

Line of credit 84,699.47

Equity (52,256.30)

13.2 The disposition of the Alspach Road property. Providence Acquisitionsl

purchased this real estate on October 17, 2002 for $3,000,000 from Liberty Christian Fellowship

a 501(c)(3) Corporation whose principal is H. David McIlrath. The Husband contends that the

Parties/Husband were badly taken by Mr. McIlratb. The trae value of the real estate alone may

be well less than $1,000,000. Mr. Josephson appraised the property for the Husband on March

25, 2005 at $500,000. A strong coniparison in Delaware county sold for $640,650 on January

14, 2005. The Parties owe HNB $2,337,356 on the first mortgage (The Wife denies that she

signed the guarantee of the first mortgage). The Wife wants the loan refmanced or her name

removed from liability thereon or the property placed for sale for an "in use" value with any

equity being divided. Providence Acquisitions and/or the Husband and/or the Parties also owe

Mr. McIlrath $400,000 on a purchase money second mortgage on the property.

10

13.3 The rnarital interest in the residence located at 53 West Mound, Canal

Winchester, Ohio. The Husband purchased this residence on March 26, 2004 for $184,000. The

sum of $11,000 was paid down on the purchase price. Of the $11,000, $6,000 was paid fromthe

GE Interest Plus Account and the balance of $5,000 was provided by the Husband's father. The

Wife claims that the $5,000 was a Christmas gift from the Husband's father to the Parties jointly.

The Husband claims the gift was to the Husband alone. The check was made out to the Husband

alone and was dated January 20, 2004. The court finds that the marital equity in the residence is

$6,000.

13.4 The value of Providence Acquisitions. The only asset of Providence Acquisitions

is the Alspach Road property. Thus the value of Providence Acquisitions may be negative more

than $1,000,000 up to close to $2,000,000.

13.5 The value of Eagle's Nest Ranch No professional appraisal was done of the

value of Eagle's Nest Ranch. Eagle's Nest Ranch has barely made enough money to pay the part

of the rent to Providence Acquisitions sufficient for Providence Acquisitions tomake the

mortgage payments to HNB.

13.6 Delinquent rent of Eagle's Nest Ranch The Wife argues that Eagle's Nest Ranch

owes Providence Acquisitions $106,241.19 for rent for the year 2004. The Wife wants this rental

debt assigned to the Husband and wants to take all remaining assets with value as an offset.

Eagle's Nest Ranch does not have the ability to pay current rent let alone delinquent rent. The

value of Providence Acquisitions's claim against Eagle's Nest Ranch for rent is nill.

13.7 The disposition of the 2003 Dodge Caravan. From the Wife's perspective, the

Wife was the owner of a 2000 Jeep Cherokee. The Husband wanted to trade the Jeep in to assist

11

in getting the lease for the 2004 BMW Z-4. The Husband told the Wife that she could have the

van if she did so. After being sued by the car dealership, the Wife did turn in the Jeep. Now the

Husband wants the van back. From the Husband's perspective, the van is the property of the

charity and all sorts of evil tax things will happen unless the Wife returns the van. The van is

probably a lease with ]ittle or no equity and can be transferred to the Wife with little or no

problem and ramification.

13.8 The valuation of the Wife's DCB checking account #1288. The Wife values this

account at its balance at the time of trial, $5,000. The Husband points out that the Wife

withdrew $40,000 from the line of credit on February 13, 2004 and put the same in this account

and has spent the same down to $5,000. The Wife states that she used the funds for living

expenses and attorney fees from February 13, 2004 to March of 2005.

13.9 Monies "loaned" to Providence Acquisitions. The Parties borrowed a line of

credit from Bank One in the principal arnount of $126,000 which was a net amount to the Parties

of $123,063.50 after closing costs and fees. This money was put into the Schwab account #9843

which currently has a balance of $2,245.87. In the Wife's written closing argunient, the Wife

states that this $126,000 was loaned to Providence Acquisitions. It was not.

The Wife also argues that $25,000 was transferred from the Schwab account #9843 to

Providence Acquisitions by check number #1379. This transfer in fact occurred on July 2, 2003.

However, on October 8, 2003, Providence Acquisitions transferred $22,300 to the line of credit

debt thus in effect repaying most of the $25,000 that came from the line of credit through Schwab

to Providence Acquisitions. In addition another $22,000 was repaid to the line of credit on

January 2, 2004, which may have come from Providence Acquisitions (the source thereof is

12

unclear, but it was either from the Schwab account or Providence Acquisitions).

The Wife also argues that $1,400 was loaned to Providence Acquisitions by check

number 1379. This Court could not find a notation or a copy of this check iri Exhibit M with

which to investigate/verify the Wife's claim.

The Wife also agues that $8,543 was paid from the Schwab account by check number

1376. The Husband did pay Mr. McIlrath $8,543 under the purchase agreement.

13.10 The transfer of $101,672.61 from the joint Schwab account to Eagle's Nest Ranch

on December 14, 2003. The Parties originally refinanced the Quail Hollow tesidence on

September 30, 2002 in the amount of $73,517.79 and took out the line of credit against Quail

Hollow in the amount of $123,062.50 because they originally needed to come up with $200,000

to close on the Alspach Road property. As it turned out, the Parties did not need this money at

closing and it remained in the joint Schwab account. On December 14, 2002, the amount of

$101,497.39 was transferred to a Schwab account in the name of Eagle's Nest Ranch #0020.

This account was restrained herein and has a balance of $81,585 as of September of 2003. The

Parties took a tax deduction for the transfer of the $101,497.39 on their 2003 tax return and

received a refund of $36,209.05. In addition, the Parties may incur tax penalties by withdrawing

the $81,585.

13.11 The allocation of the Wife's Mainstay account. Both Parties had a Mainstay

account in the amount of $12,054.99 as of November of 2004. The Wife states that she withdrew

her Mainstay fund and spent it on family purposes and thus allocates the account to her at a zero

value in her written closing argument.

13

13.12 The allocation of the GE Interest Plus Account. The Wife alleges that the

Husband made withdrawals on this account in the amount of $12,280.45 from March 26 - August

26, 2004. The Wife stated in her written closing argument that she "has placed these funds and

the balance on the account on his side of the division." On the spreadsheet attached to the

closing argument, the Wife put $6,280.45 on the Husband's side plus the balance as of

September 24, 2004. The Husband did in fact withdraw $12,303.28 from this account as

follows:

Date Description Amt Husband's Explanation

3/26/04 3002 Cbicago Title 6,000.00 down payment 53 West Mound

7/1/04 3003 Deborah Burks 550.00 repairs 53 W. Mound?

7/20/04 3004 Timothy I. Flahive 2,500.00 guardian ad litem

7/20/04 3005 Anthony M. Heald 3,000.00 Husband's attorney

7/30/04 3007 James Riggin 253.28 repairs 54 W. Mound

TOTAL 2,303.28

The $6,000 payment to Chicago Title has been accounted for and has be found to

be marital property in the discussion with respect to 53 W. Mound. The majority of the other

charges against this account are for litigation expenses and the Wife paid similar expenses out of

the $40,000 that she withdrew from the Schwab account.

13.13 The Wife's income and earning ability for the purposes of computing child

support and spousal support. The Wife is age 40, date of birth July 3, 1964. At the inception of

this case, the Wife was employed by Dr. Jeffrey Hudson as a receptionist and had been since

September 13, 2004. The Wife was paid $12.00 per hour, 32 - 36 hours per week, $19,968 -

$22,464 per year. The Wife lost her employment for missing too many days due to the trial

14

herein.

The Parties were married on July 22, 1989. At that time the Wife was a teacher in

Michigan and had been since 1986. Torry was born on June 21, 1991. The Wife remained a

teacher until 1994 (at the time that the Husband went to work for a division of Allied Signal in

Perrysburg, Ohio and the Parties moved to Ohio) From that time on, the Wife did not work

outside the home until she became employed by the Eagles Nest Ranch as curriculum director.

At one time Eagle's Nest Ranch felt that it had the income to pay the for her work. Eagle's Nest

Ranch paid the Wife at the rate of $89,000.00 per year. However, with multiple disputes

^between the Parties and the low/no income of Eagle's Nest the payments soon ceased. The

Wife's current iucome is zero. The Wife's current earning ability is 20,000.00 per year T

Wife's earning ability if the Wife was able to become re-certified in education would obviously

be higher.

13.14 The Husband's income and earning ability for the purposes of computing child

support and spousal support. The Husband is age 41, date of birth November 5, 1963. The

Husband has a BA degree from Providence College in 1985. In 1985, the Husband was hired by

Chrysler as a recruiter for engineers. The Husband was employed in Detroit, Michigan. The

Husband worked in this position for about 1.5 years and was paid $24,000 per year. The

Husband then took a job as a labor relations representative in Sandusky, Ohio for one year. The

Husband was paid in the high $20,000's per year. In 1988 the Husband took a position as a

corporate labor relations representative back in Detroit. The Husband worked at this position for

1988 and 1989. The Husband was paid in the low $30,000's plus perks. The Husband then took

an executive compensation position. In 1991 - 1992 the Husband worked with Chrysler in labor

15

relations and was paid in the low $40,000's. The Husband wanted to be a human resources

manager. The Husband went to work for Frito Lay at Allen Park in 1992 for two years (1993,

1994) and was paid $60,000 per year. The Husband then went to work for a division of Allied

Signal in Perrysburg, Ohio. The Husband earned $85,000 per year. The Husband worked for

Allied Signal for 9 months (1995). The Husband then went to work for Monaco (Monroe Auto

Equipment Company) for 2 years (1995 -1997) and was paid $90,000 per year. In 1997, the

Husband went to work for NBC TV (a subset of GE) as director of employee relations. The

Husband was employed in New York City and was paid $110,000. The Husband worked for

NBC TV for 1:5 years. The Husband then went to Chicago GE Capital as director of human

resources and labor. The Husband was paid $110,000 per year. The Husband was with GE

Capital from late 1998 to 1999. In November of 1999, the Husband took a position with Stanley

Tool as the human resource director for the mechanics' tools division in Dallas, Texas. The

Husband was paid $160,000 per year plus a bonus of approximately $20,000 per year. In 2001,

the Husband was proinoted to the Mac Tools division in Columbus Ohio at a pay of $176,000

per year plus a bonus. The Husband worked for Mac Tools from January of 2001 until February

of 2002. At that time Mac Tools laid off their employee sales representatives and converted to

franchisees. As reorganized, Mac Tools did not have employees and thus did not need a director

of human resources. The Husband was laid off in early 2002 and received severance pay to the

middle of 2003.

Richard P. Oestreich evaluated the Husband's employment history and potential. Mr.

Oestreich testified that the following employment opportunities would be available to the

Husband:

16

social services 76,951.00 87,657.00

human resources manager 79,435.00 91,943.00

educational consultant 78,811.00 87,567.00

top social services executive 81,743.00 91,448.00

top labor relations manager 93,476.00 112,554.00

top division human resourcesmanager

133,505.00 165,529.00

top human resources executive 194,120.00 250,066.00

The Husband's current earnings are zero. The Husband can become employed

realistically at $76,951 to $133,505 with upward potential to $165,529 and $194,120 and beyond.

The Husband has already been at the $190,000+ level. The Husband's earning ability has three

dilemmas."Should the Husband take a$76,951.00 job and abandon the Eagle's Nest Ranch

project and endure a foreclosure of the Alspach Road property. Having been to the top, the

Husband is somewhat unwilling to start at a lower paying job agattAhird, any employment and

certainly any of the higher priced eniployment may necessitate a move as far away as to

California. This has financial impact on Eagle's Nest Ranch and also an impact on the

Husband's relationship with his two children. Unlike prior moves, the Wife will not be moving

with him

13,15 Spousal support. Section 3105.18 of the Ohio Revised Code lists 14 factors that a

court should consider in awarding spousal support and the amount thereof:

1. The duration of the marriage;

2. The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage;

3. The ages, and the physicat, mental, and emotional conditions of theparties;

17

4. The income of the Parties, from all sources, including, but not limited to,income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under Section3105.171 of the Revised Code;

5. The relative earning abilities of the parties;

6. The relative extent of education of the Parties;

7. The relative assets and liabilities of the Parties, including but not limitedto any court-ordered payments by the Parties;

8. The retirement benefits of the Parties;

9. The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because he willbe custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside of thehome;

10. The contribution of each Party to the education, training, or earningability of the other Party, including, but not limited to, any Party's contrtbution tothe acquisition of a professional degree of the other Party;

11. The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is,seeking spousalsupport to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will bequalified to obtain appropriate employment, providing the education, training, orjob experience, and employment is, in fact, sought;

12. The lost income production capacity of either Party that resulted fromthat Party's marital responsibilities;

13. The tax consequences, for each Party, of an award of spousal support;

14. Any other factor that the Court expressly finds to be relevant andequitable.

The Parties were mamed on July 22, 1989 and separated in March 2004, a period of 14

years and 8 months to the date of separation and filing. The date of trial was March 9, 2005, a

period of 15 years and 8 months to trial. The Parties established a upper class standard of living

during the marriage considering the relatively young age of the Parties. The Husband's income

was in excess of $170,000. The Wife did not have to work outside the home. The residence was

worth close to $500,000. The mortgage was approximately $300,000. The Parties has acquired

significant retirement and other intangible personal property. Then the Husband lost his

18

employment with Stanley Works and the Parties made the ill-fated investment in Eagle's Nest .

IRanch.

The Wife is age 40. The Husband is age 41. Both Parties are in good physical, mental, and^^ ----------_

emotional condition. Neither_EaA.y]aas- *wriqe at the present time. ^ Wife has immediate

earning ability of $20,000 per year with an upscale potential as a teacher possibly starting at

$35,000 and moving up the scale. The Husband has immediate earning ability of approximately

$75,000 with a potential of $150,000 and beyond. The Wife has a high school degree and a

masters degree in education. The Husband has a high school degree, undergraduate degree,

masters degree, and has completed his course work for a doctorate.

The relative assets and liabilities of the Parties, including any court-ordered payments by

the Parties and the retirement benefits of the Parties are as set forth herein. Neither Party is

prevented from seeking employment outside the home due to that Party being a custodian of a

minor child. Neither Party contributed to the education, training, or earning ability of the other

Party. The Wife may have to take substantial course work to become certified to teach in Obio.

The Wife lost substantial income production capacity due to her assumption of marital

responsibilities with respect to the children and to the Husband's career. The moving of the

Parties ternvnated the Wife's teaching career. The Wife would now have 18 years of teaching,

would be fairly high on the pay scale, and would be looking at retirement in 12 years at the age of

52. Spousal support is deductible to the payor and is income to the payee.

The Ohio Bar Association has drafted a proposed spousal support statute which it intends

to submit to the legislature in 2005. The spousal support subcommittee reached a"finar' spousal

support proposal on January 12, 2005. The proposed statute is modeled after the spousal support

19

provisions of the American Law Institute's "Principles of the Law of Fanuly Dissolution" (2002).

The key provision of the proposed statute is an award of spousal support as compensation for the

loss of the standard of living where the incomes of the Parties are disparate, proposed Section

3105.181(A). A threshold test is first applied to determine if spousal support should be awarded.

The proposed threshold tesf is whether the Parties were married for 5 years or more and whether

the claimant's income generating capacity is 60% or less of the Obligor's income generating

capacity. The duration of marriage herein was 14 years and 8 months to the date of filing and 15

years and 8 months to the date of trial The Wife's income generating capacity at $20,000 is

26.67% of the Husband's income at $75,000 wbich is less than 60% thereof. The proposed statute

awards spousal support as a percentage of the difference in the incomes of the Parties. For a

man•iage of 10 years but less than 20 years, the statute states that the percentage of the difference

in incomes should be in a range of 30 to 40% (proposed Section 3105.184(D)(2)). Spousal

support under the proposed statute for the Husband's income at $75,000.00 would be $16,500 -

$22,000 per year, $1,375 - $1,833 per month, calculated as follows:

Husband's income 75,000.00

Wife's income 20,000.00

60% of the Husband's income 45,000.00

Duration of Marriage 15+ years

Threshold Factors met? (Wife's income 60%or less than Husband's; mairiage > 5 years)

Yes

Difference in income 55,000.00 Per Month:

Low range of Spousal support (30)% 16,500.00 1,375.00

High range of spousal support (40%) 22,000.00 1,833.33

20

Spousal support under the proposed statute for the Husband's income at $100,000 would

be $24,000 - $32,000 per year, $2,000 - $2,666.67 per nwnth, calculated as follows:





Threshold Factors met? (Wife's income 60%or less than Husband's; marriage > 5 years)

Yes

Difference in umcome 80,000.00 Per Month:


I High range of spousal support (40%) 32,000.00 2,666.67


be $31,500 - $42,000 per year, $2,625 - $3,500 per month, calculated as follows:






Yes





be $39,000- $52,000 per year, $3,250 - $4,333 per month, calculated as follows:

21






Yes




Spousal support under the proposed statute for the Husband's income at $150,000 and the

Wife's income at $35,000 would be $34,500 - $46,000 per year, $2,875 - $3,833 per month,

calculated as follows:






Yes




The proposed statute presumes that spousal support would be permanent (called indefinite)

if the duration of the marriage is 25 years or more and definite if the duration of marriage is less

than 25 years. For marriages less than 25 years, the statute presumes the duration of the spousal

support will be a percentage of the length of marriage. For marriages from 15 - 25 years, the

22

percentage range of the duration of the spousal support is 40 - 60% of the length of the marriage.

Using a narriage of 15 years herein, the duration of the spousal support would be 6 years - 9

years. For marriages from 10 - 15 years, the percentage range of the duration of the spousal

support is 35 - 45% of the length of the marriage. Using a marriage of 14 years herein, the

duration of the spousal support would be 4.9 years - 6.3 years.

Attached is a series of 8 FinPlan© calculations. All the calculations use the Wife's income

at $20,000. The Husband's income is assumed at $75,000, $100,000, $125,000, and $150,000.

For each income level, 2 calculations are done, one without spousal support and one with spousal

support at the a iir-rmnm level of the proposed spousal support as calculated above. These

caleulations reveal the following information

Husband'sincome

Spousalsupport

Childsupport

Husband'safter tax

Wife'safter tax

HusbandPercent

WifePercent

75,000 0 1,192 40,795 31,049 57 43

100,000 0 1,448 51,972 34,125 60 40

125,000 0 1,690 64,386 37,023 63 37

150,000 0 1,792 79,040 38,247 67 33

75,000 1,375 924 32,492 41,182 44 56

100,000 2,000 1,092 40,831 49,236 45 55

125,000 2,625 1,255 49,465 11 57,039 46 54

150,000 3,250 1,317 58,961 63,009 48 52

In all cases when there was no spousal support, the disparity in after tax and after child

support income greatly favored the Husband and the disparity became proportionately larger as the

Husband's income increased. In all cases where there was the minimum spousal support as

provided under the proposed statute, the disparity in after tax, after spousal support, and after child

23

support income greatly favored the Wife. However, the disparity became proportionately smaller

as the income increased, with the split at income of $150,000 being relatively close at $58,961 for

the Husband and $63,009 for the Wife.

The Wife's closing argument requested the Court to find that the Husband's earning ability

is $240,000 and to set spousal support at $3,500 but as a muLimum to find the Husband's earning

ability is $150,000 and set spousal support at $3,000 per month (but fmd that amount to be

inadequate). The Wife requested spousal support for a 10 year period. The Wife's budget

presented with her supplemental affidavit in support of temporary orders filed April 1, 2004 and

testified to at trial shows expenses when the Wife is living in the marital residence of $8,510.74

iper month, $102,128.88 per year. The court has to kkeep in mind that the above analyses are,

dealing with "fiinny" money. Currently neither Party has any income. If the court could pick, the

court would pick alternative number 9 where the Husband's income is $150,000, the Wife's

income is $20,000, spousal support is $2,500 per month, child support is $1,426, and the Wife is

permitted to claim both children. In scenario number 9, the Husband would make $61,527 after

the payment of income taxes, spousal support, and child support and the Wife would make

$61,149. As fanciful as the "perfect' world may be, it does indicate the "outer limits" of spousal

support would be $2,500 per month and child support would be $1,426.

The Court has to start somewhere. Both Parties need to find employment. The Husband's

earning ability is a nvnimum of $75,000, the Wife's is $20,000. In that scenario if spousal support

were $750, child support would be $1,046 and the Husband's income after the payment of taxes,

spousal support, and child support would be $36,265 and the Wife's would be $36,603 ( FinPlan©

calculation #10).

24

14. Section 3109.04 of the Ohio Revised Code provides in relevant part as follows:

"(A) In any divorce ... proceeding ... the court shall allocate the parentalrights and responsibilities for the care of the minor children of the marriage.Subject to division (D)(2) of this section, the court may allocate the parental rightsand responsibilities for the care of the children in eitber of the following ways:

(1) If neither parent files a pleading or motion in accordance with division(G) of this section ... the court, in a rnanner consistent with the best interest of thechildren, shall allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of thechildren primarily to one of the parents, designate that parent as the residentialparent and the legal custodian of the child, and divide between the parents theother rights and responsibilities for the care of the children, including, but notlimited to, the responsibility to provide support for the children and the right ofthe parent who is not the residential parent to have continuing contact with thechildren.

(B)(1) When makv.tg the allocation of the parental rights andresponsibilities for the care of the children under this section ... the court shalltake into account that which would be in the best interest of the children. Iiidetennining the child's best interest for purposes of niaking its allocation of theparental rights and responsibffities for the care of the child and for purposes ofresolving any issues related to the making of that allocation, the court, in itsdiscretion, may and, upon the request of either party, shall interview in chambersany or all of the involved children regarding their wishes and concetvs withrespect to the allocation. ...

(F)(1) In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to this section,whether on an original decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for thecare of children or a modification of a decree allocating those rights andresponsibilities, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but notlimited to:

(a) The wishes of the child's parents regarding his care;

(b) If the court has interviewed the child in chatnbers pursuant to division(B) of this section regarding the child's wishes and concerns as to the allocation ofparental rights and responsibilities concerning the child, the wishes and concernsof the child, as expressed to the court;

(c) The child's interaction and interrelationship with his parents, siblings,and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest;

25

(d) The child's adjustment to his home, school, and community;

(e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation;

(f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate visitation andcompanionship rights approved by the court;

(g) Whether either parent has failed to make all child support payments,including all arrearages, that are required of that parent pursuant to a child supportorder under which that parent is an obligor;

(h) Whether either parent previously lias been convicted of or pleadedguilty to any critninal offense involving any act that resulted in a cbtld being anabused child or a neglected child; whether either parent, in a case in which a childhas been adjudicated an abused child or a neglected child, previously has beendetermined to be the perpetrator of the abusive or neglectfnl act that is the basis ofan adjudication; whether either parent previously has been convicted of or pleadedguilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code involving a victimwho at the time of the comnussion of the offense was a member of the family orhousehold that is the subject of the current proceeding; whether either parentpreviously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense involving avictim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of thefamily or household that is the subject of the current proceeding and causedphysical harm to the victim in the cornnussion of the offense; and whether there isreason to believe that either parent has acted in a manner resulting in a child beingan abused child or a neglected child;

(i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a sharedparenting decree has continuously and willfiilly denied the other parent his or herright to visitation in accordance with an order of the court;

(j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning toestablish a residence, outside this state."

The Wife wishes to be awarded custody of both children. The Guardian ad litem and Dr.

Smalldon reconunended that the Wife be designated the residential parent and legal custodian

during the school year and that the Husband have visitation from Thursday to Sunday on one

weekend and overnight on Wednesday the next week during the school year. Dr. Smatldon and

the guardian ad litem recommended that the roles of the Parties be reversed during the suu.imer.

26

The Wife objects to this recommendation on the basis that the Husband cannot provide for

Michael's schooling needs during the school year and Michael's tutoring during the summer and

on the basis that the Husband denigrates the Wife to Michael. (Currently, Torry does not visit

with her Father. Michael has been visiting with his father along the lines of Court rale 29). The

Husband wishes to be awarded custody or shared parenting with respect to the children. The

Court interviewed the children. Torry does not want to visit her father. Michael enjoys visiting

with his Father but also enjoys the close relationship that he has with his mother. Michael would

like to be home schooled by his mother.

Torry and Michael have close relationships with each other and with the mother. Michael

has a close relationship with his father. Torry's relationship with her father is strained at the

present time. Both children are adjusted to their home, school, and community. Torry attends

Veritas Academy where she attends 2 or 3 days per week and works at home the other 2 or 3 days

per week. Michael attends Worthington Christian Academy. Bach of the Parties are in good

physical health The Husband has made allegations against the Wife ranging from environmental

concerns, over-involvement with altemative medicine, feng shui, and demonic possession. The

Wife is not likely to honor or facilitate visitation and companionship rights and the Husband is

more ]tkely to honor or facilitate visitation and companionship rights.

The temporary order of May 14, 2004 contained the following finding:

"7. Child support under Section 3119.022 of the Revised Code for twoin children in the custody of the Wife if the Husband's income is zero and theWife's in $89,000.00, obviously, is zero. Child support for two children in thecustody of the Wife if the Husband's income is $240,000.00 and the Wife'sincome is zero, is $1,830.92 per month. Child support for two children in thecustody of the Wife if the Husband's income is $240,000.00 and the Wife'sincome is $89,000.00 is $1,335.62 per month, calculated as follows" ...

27

The temporary order of May 14, 2004 made the following order:

"3. If both the Husband and the Wife receive compensation fromEagles Nest or any other entity, then child support be $1,335.62 per monthpayable by the Husband. If the Husband receives compensation from Eagles Nestor any other entity and the Wife does not, then child support shall be $1,830.92per month payable by the Husband. If the Husband does not receivecompensation from Eagles Nest or any other entity, child support shall be zero.Child support shall commence on May 16, 2004."

The temporary order was attempting to set support when faced with contradictory

allegations as to the income of the Parties. As a consequence the temporary child support order

is difficult and/or ambiguous to enforce. fThus no finding is made at this time as to whether the

Husband has failed to make all child support payments. Yeither Party has abused or neglected

any children. The Husband has had no visitation with Torry. There undoubtedly is a close

correlation between the Wife's attitude toward the Husband and Toxry's attitude. The court

hesitates to make a finding that the Wife has continuously and willfully denied the Husband with

his right to visitation. However, the court expects visitation with Torry to take place as set forth

herein. Neither parent is planning to establish a residence outside this state.

15. An equitable division of the Parties' property is as follows:

Value: Wife: Husband: Eagles Nest

53 West Mound St. 6,000.00 6,000.00

DCB, checking account 5,000.00 5,000.00

DCB, checking account, Wife, #3086 Wife

Charles Schwab, checking account,joint, #9843 @ 1/31/05

2,241.87 2,241.87

Canal Banking Center, checkingaccount, Eagles Nest, #7066

2,000.00 2,000.00

28

4 tdGE, Interest Plus, savings account' 717.87 717.87

Savings Bonds, Series I, Wife 5,000.00 separate

Charles Schwab, Eagles Nest Ranch 81,585.00

Providence Acquisition LLC Husband

1,000 shares SWK, $35,000, Options zero

Columbia Funds, joint, @ 11/18/04 2,421.45 2,421.45

NY Life, ins., on life of Husband Eagles Nest

Protective ins., on life of Wife Wife

Met Life, ins., on life of Husband .$421.98 @ 12/31/02; lapsed in 1999

Husband

Stanley Account Value Plan 67,480.92 67,480.92

Stanley Supplemental Account ValuePlan

18,630.21 18,630.21

AIG, Valic, Tax Sheltered Annuity, W783.70 783.70

Charles Schwab, IRA, Husband 35,924.68 35,924.68

Waddell - Reed, 403(B), Wife 12,588.54 12,588.54

Mainstay, 403(B), Wife 12,054.99 12,054.99

Mainstay, 403(B), Husband 12,054.99 12,054.99

GE SSP 401(k) 35,200.00 35,200.00

Daimler Chrysler, SSP 31,927.44 31,927.44

Pepsi, ESOP, MerriIl Lynch,(rolled over to Schwab IRA)

Income Tax Refund, 2003, Husband 11,688.00 11,688.00

Income Tax Refund, 2003, Wife 2,819.00 2,819.00

Providence Acquistions, LLC vLiberty Christian Fellowship

Children's Hospital (1,563.31) (1,563.31)

29

SUBTOTAL 121,778.81 134,191.54

EQUALIZING DISTRIBUTION 6,206.37 (6,206.37)

TOTAL 127,985.18 127,985.18

16. The Parties are incompatible (not denied by either Party) by reason of which each

Party is entitled to a divorce from the other.

DECISION

1. Both Parties be granted a divorce from each other.

2. The parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children be allocated

primarily to the Wife and the Wife be designated as the residential parent and the legal custodian

of the children.

3. The Husband have reasonable rights of visitation as provided in local rule a copy

of which is attached hereto. The local rule be amended with respect to Michael to make the

weekend visitation from Thursday at 6:00 p.m., to Sunday at 6:00 p.m., (with no Wednesday

visitations during that week) and to make the Wednesday visitation in the off week overnight

from after school on Wednesday to Thursday morning at school or daycare. This pattern would

be reversed during the summer except that Michael would be with the Wife for the first fiill week

after school and for the last full week before school starts. In addition each Party can schedule a

summer vacation from 1 week up to 2 weeks during which the other Party shall not have

visitation if the vacationing Party is in fact traveling out of state.

30

Torry shall have visitation with her Father on Monday evening from 6:00 p.m, to 7:00

p.m., effective Monday Apri125, 2005. It is mandatory that this visitation take place. It is

mandatory that Torry have a good attitude about this visitation. This matter is set for hearing on

Monday May 16, 2005 at 4:00 p.m, to review the visitation of Apri125, May 2, and May 9,

2005.

4. The Husband shall pay child support in the amomntof'3 1,046.00 per r,$onth

commencing May 1, 2005. Child support shall be paid through the e ware County Child

Support Enforcement Agency with proper poundage by proper enforcement order. Child support

shaTl terminate upon the child reaching the age of 18. However, the child support obligation and

order shall remain in effect beyond the child's 18th birthday and thereafter up to the child's 19th

birthday as long as the child continuously attends any recognized and accredited high school on a

fuIl-time basis. The Husband shall continue to pay support under the order including during

seasonal vacation periods until the order terminates.

The Husband may claim the children as income tax dependents provided the Husband is

current in child support for the children conmiencing May 1, 2005. The Wife shall execute any

documents necessary to effectuate this award. The award of income tax dependency is

reviewable with support.

5. Both Parties shall keep the children beneficiaries of his or her employer-provided

health insurance and provide all necessary forms and instructions to the other. Both Parties must

use covered services when reasonably available and must comply with all reasonable

requirements of the insurer. Employer-provided health insurance means health, dental, optical

31

etc., insurance available at the present time or in the future through the current or any future

employer at reasonable cost.

6. The Wife shall pay the first $100.00 per calendar year per chitd of all reasonable

uninsured medical etc., expenses for the children. All such expenses in excess of $100.00 per

year shall be paid 50% by the Husband and 50% by the Wife. Medical etc., expenses include

medical, dental, orthodontic, optical, prescription drug, psychological, and psychiatric expenses.

7. The real estate of the Parties located at 5549 Quail Hollow Way, Westerville,

Ohio shall be sold at such price, using such agents, in such manner and on such terms as the

Parties may agree. The proceeds of the sale shall be paid as follows:

to the usual costs of sale;

to the debts on the premises to Countrywide and Bank One

to the Parties equally, adjusted by the amount that either Party may then be inarrears on any obligation under the final Decree herein. In the event that there is adeficiencyin the sale, the Husband shall pay the deficiency.

Until the house is sold, the Wife shall have exclusive possession thereof. The Husband

shall pay the niortgage payment to Countrywide and Bank One, real estate taxes that are billed

and due before closing, insurance, and ordinary maintenance and repairs on the premises until

sale.

It is the intent of this provision to effectuate a sale that is fair to both Parties in sale price,

terms, and the timing of the sale. Tlris court shall retain jurisdiction over the manner and terms

of the sale including the price, the interim obligations of the Parties, and the division of proceeds

in the event of disagreement thereto.

32

8. The real estate of the Parties located at 53 W. Mound Street, Canal Winchester,

Ohio be awarded to the Husband.

9. The Husband be awarded the 2004 BMW Z-4.

10. The Wife be awarded the 2003 Dodge Caravaa The Husband provide a means

that the 2003 Dodge Caravan can be transferred to the Wife without tax or other penalty to the

Wife. Any lien or lease payments be current at the time of the transfer. The Wife assume any

unpaid lien or lease payments.

11. Each Party be awarded the other items of tangible personal property currently in

his or her respective possession.

12. The Husband shall keep the minor children of the Parties equal beneficiaries of

insurance in the face amount of $200,000 until the youngest child reaches the age of 18.

13. The Husband be awarded the following items of intangible personal property:

Charles Schwab, checking account, joint, #9843, $2,245.87 @ January 31, 2005

GE, Interest Plus, savings account, Husband, $717.87 as of 9/24/04


Met Life, ins., on life of Husband, face amount $260,000, cash value, $421.98 (12/31/02)

Charles Schwab, IRA, Husband, $35,924.68 as of December 31, 2004.

Mainstay, 403(B), Husband, $12,054.99 as of November 2004

GE Savings and Security Plan, 401(k), $35,200.00, 12/31/03

33

Daimler Cbrysler, SSP, $31,927.44, March 31, 2004 (Wife's Exbibit J)

Income Tax Refnnd, 2003, Husband, $11,688.00

^h Pepsi, ESOP, Merrill Lynch, if it exists

14. The Wife be awarded the following itenis of intangible personal property:

DCB, checking account, Wife, #1288, $49,000.00, now $5,000.00


Savings Bond, Series I, Wife, 10/2001, face amount $5,000.00

Columbia Funds, joint, $2,395.98 (12/31/03); $2,421.45 as of 11/18/04 (Wife's Exhibit

Delaware)


Stanley Account Value Plan, $67,480.92 (12/27/04)(This transfer shall be made by QDRO or other tax-free exchange, if necessary)

Stanley Supplemental Account Value Plan, $18,630.21 (12/27/04)(This transfer shall be made by QDRO or other tax-free exchange, if necessary)

AIG, Valic, Tax Sheltered Annuity, Wife, $783.70 as of 12/31/04

Waddell - Reed, (Berkley School District) 403(B), Wife, $12,588.54 as of June 30,2004,

Mainstay, 403(B), Wife, $12,054.99 as of November 2004.

Income Tax Refnnd, 2003, Wife, $2,819.00

^h Pepsi, ESOP, Merrill Lynch, if it exists

15. Eagle's Nest Ranch and/or Providence Acquisitions be awarded the following

items of intangible personal property:

Canal Banking Center, checking account, Eagle's Nest Ranch and Academy, #7066, $2,000.00

34

Charles Schwab, Eagles Nest Ranch, $81,585.00 (9/03). The restraining order with respectthereto be released

NY Life (First Colony) ins., on life of Husband, face amount $4,000,000 (owned by Eagle'sNest Ranch and Academy, beneficiary Providence Acquisitions), see Exlnbit S

Providence Acquistions, LLC v Liberty Cbristian Fellowsbip

16. The Husband pay the following debts of the Parties and hold the Wife harmless

thereon:

Creditor

Countrywide Mortgage

Bank One

Purpose of Debt Balance Monthlyor collateral Payment

Home mortgage 381,556.83 (2/16) 2,081.81

Home Equity 84,699.47 (119)

(The above 2 debts be paid as provided in paragraph 7 hereof)

HNB

Dave McIlrath

US Bank

Bank One

US Bank

George Washington

Children's Hospital

first mortgage, Alspach

Alspach Road

2004 BMW, lease

visa, Husband, sinceseparation

visa, Husband, sinceseparation

back tuition

MRT for Michael

2,337,356.00 13,627.53

400,000.00

40,524.00 584.24

10,000.00

5,000.00

4,000.00

1,563.31any other debt that the Husband has incurred

17. The Wife pay the following debts of the Parties and hold the Husband harmless

thereon:

Creditor Purpose of Debtor coIlateral

Balance MonthlyPayment

35

Bank One visa, Wife, #2092

any other debt that the Wife has incurred

10,000.00

18. The Husband pay the Wife the sun),,ff $6,000.00 to eqjtalize the property division

within 28 days of the date hereof.

19. The Husband shall pay spousal support '35.0 per nth conmiencing with the

first month after the month in which the sale of the Parties' real estate takes place. If the

residence has not sold within 6 months, then for each month that the Husband has paid the

mortgage payments for the residence from and after May 1, 2005, then that nwnth shall be

credited as a month of spousal support paid. Spousal support shall be paid through the Delaware

County Child Support Enforcement Agency with proper poundage by wage assignment. Spousal

support shall terminate on the earliest of the following events: 1) the death of either Party; 2) 84

monthly payments (which may be paid in advance); 3) the Wife's remarriage or cohabitation with

a non-related adult male. Spousal support shall be considered as income to the recipient and

deductible to the payor for income tax purposes. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify this

award based on changed circumstances of the Parties as defined in Section 3105.18 of the Ohio

Revised Code.

20. A restraining order be placed on the following assets awarded to the Husband:



Daimler Chrysler, SSP, $31,927.44, March 31, 2004 (Wife's Exhibit J)


36

The Court expects that the Husband may have to liquidate one or more of these assets and

may do so to pay child support and spousal support. The Husband may not do so for any other

reason. The Court expects the Husband to use these assets to remain current on

21. The temporary order be terminated effective Apri130, 2005. Any arrearages or

overages be preserved.

22. Each Party promptly and properly do any act and execute any document necessary

to carry out the provisions of the final Decree herein.

23. Court costs be paid from deposits and any excess costs be paid equally by both

Parties within 90 days of the date hereof.

24. Each Party pay his and her own attorney fees.

25. Each Party has 14 days from the date of the filing of this Decision to file written

objections with the Clerk of Court's office with respect to the Decision. Any such objections

must be served upon all Parties to this action. A Party shall not assign as error on appeal the

Court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law in this Decision unless the Party

timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by Civil Rule 53(E)(3).

Stephen E. Weithman, Magistrate

37

PROOF OF SERVICE

A copy of this Magistrate's Decision was served on the following by ordinary mail (or by

delivery to the Delaware County Courthouse Box, if appHcable) on the date of the file-stamp

hereof:

1. Andrea R. Yagoda, Attorney for the Wife

2. Anthony M. Heald, Attorney for the Husband

3. Douglas R. Jennings, Attomey for Eagle's Nest Ranch

4. Timothy I. Flahive, guardian ad litem

5. The Delaware County Child Support Enforcement Agency

Stephen B. Weitlunan, Magistrate

38

Summary Of Alimony/Child Support Alternative Cases F eLast Name Wayland

H75;W20 NO SS; CS 1192 2: H75;W20 SS 1375 CS 924 3: H100;W20 NoSS CS 1448Annual Figures Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah

1 Cash Income 75,000 20,000 75,000 20,000 100,000 20,0002 Children with: 0 2 0 0 23 Child Support (14,307) 14,307 (1 3 (17,383) 17,3834 Alimony 0 0 (16,500) 16,500 0 0S Non Taxable Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0

t"6 Cash to Meet Living Expenses 40,795 31,049 ^492 41,182 51,972 34,1257 Total Cash for Both 71,844 73,674 86,0978 Budget Cash 0 0 0 0 0 09 Over(Under)Budget 40,795 31,049 32,492 41,182 51,972 34,12510 Share Cash 57% 43% 44%---"-56% 60% 40%

11 Filing Status Single Hd Hsld SiOgle' Hd k Single Hd Hsld12 No. of Children Age 17 & Over 0 0 0 0 0 013 No. of Children Under 17 2 0 2 0 2 014 Marginal Fed + State Tax % 30.2% 13.7% 30.2% 19.5% 32.3% 13.7%15 Federal + State Tax 12,660 1,328 7,677 4,481 21,615 1,32816 Total Taxes for Both 13,988 12,158 22,94317 Tax Savings Exemptions for Children + 3,775 0 3,775 0 2,682 0Under 17 Child Cr

18 Tax Changes from Alimony 0 0 4,983 (3,153) 0 019 Guideline Support 14,307 11,0_93- 17,383Comments:

April 16, 2005 10:47 AM© 2005 West, a Thomson business. All rights reserved.

Summary Of Alimony/Child Support Alternative Cases For 2005Last Name Wa landy

4: H100;W20 SS 2000 CS 1092 5: H125;W20 NoSS CS 1690 6: H125;W20 55 2625 CS 1255Annual Figures Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah1 Cash Income 100,000 20,000 125,000 20,000 125,000 20,0002 Children with: 0 2 0 2 0 23 Child Support (13,127) 13,127 (20,281) 20,281 (15,065) 15,0654 Alimony (24,000) 24,000 0 0 (31,500) 31,5005 Non Taxable Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Cash to Meet Living Expenses 40,831 49,236 64,386 37,023 49,465 57,0397 Total Cash for Both 90,067 101,409 106,5048 Budget Cash 0 0 0 0 0 09 Over (Under) Budget 40,831 49,236 64,386 37,023 49,465 57,039

10 Share Cash 45% 55% 63% 37% 46% 54%

11 Filing Status Single Hd Hsld Single Hd Hsid Single Hd Hsld12 No. of Children Age 17 & Over 0 0 0 0 0 013 No. of Children Under 17 2 0 2 0 2 014 Marginal Fed + State Tax % 30.2% 20.20/u 33.0% 13.7% 32.3% 30.20k15 Federal + State Tax 13,012 5,961 30,440 1,328 19,077 7,59616 Total Taxes for Both 18,973 31,768 26,67317 Tax Savings Exemptions for Children + 3,725 0 1,950 0 2,982 0Under 17 Child Cr

18 Tax Changes from Alimony 8,603 (4,633) 0 0 11,363 (6,268)19 Guideline Support 13,127 20,281 15,065Comments:


Summary Of Alimony/Child Support Alternative Cases For 2005Last Name Wayland

7: H150;W20; No SS; CS 1792 8: H150;W20 SS 3250 CS 1317 9: SS 2500 CS 1426; W clmAnnual Figses Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah1 Cash Income 150,000 20,000 150,000 20,000 150,000 20,0002 Children with: 0 2 0 2 0 23 Child Support (21,505) 21,505 (15,800) 15,800 (17,116) 17,1164 Alimony 0 0 (39,000) 39,000 (30,000) 30,0005 Non Taxable Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Cash to Meet Living Expenses 79,040 38,247 58,961 63,009 61,527 61,1497 Total Cash for Both 117,287 121,970 122,6768 Budget Cash 0 0 0 0 0 09 Over (Under) Budget 79,040 38,247 58,961 63,009 61,527 61,14910 Share Cash 67% 33% 48% 52% 50% 50%

11 Filing Status Single Hd Hsld Single Hd Hsld Single Hd Hsld12 No. of Children Age 17 & Over 0 0 0 0 0 013 No. of Children Under 17 2 0 2 0 0 214 Marginal Fed + State Tax % 36.0% 13.7% 33.0% 30.2% 33.0% 20.2%15 Federal + State Tax 38,700 1,328 25,484 9,861 30,602 4,03716 Total Taxes for Both 40,028 35,345 34,63917 Tax Savings Exemptions for Children + 1,878 0 2,150 0 0 3,135Under 17 Child Cr

18 Tax Changes from Alimony 0 0 13,216 (8,533) 9,960 (5,146)19 Guideline Support 21,505 15,800 17,116Comments:


Summary Of Alimony/Child Support Alternative Cases For 2005Last Name Wa landy

10: H75;W20 SS 750 CS 1046Annual Fyures Scott Suzannah1 Cash Income 75,000 20,0002 Children with: 0 23 Child Support (12,555) 12,5554 Alimony (9,000) 9,0005 Non Taxable Maintenance 0 0

6 Cash to Meet Living Expenses 36,265 36,603

7 Total Cash for Both 72,868

8 Budget Cash 0 09 Over (Under) Budget 36,265 36,603

10 Share Cash 50% 50%

11 Filing Status Single Hd Hsld12 No. of Children Age 17 & Over 0 013 No. of Children Under 17 2 014 Marginal Fed + State Tax % 30.2% 19.5%15 Federal + State Tax 9,942 3,02216 TotaiTaxesfor Both 12,96417 Tax Savings Exemptions for Children + 3,775 0Under 17 Child Cr

18 Tax Changes from Alimony 2,718 (1,694)19 Guideline Support 12,555Comments:

April 16, 2005 12:01 PM© 2005 West, a Thomson business. AII rights reserved.

CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET

SOLE RESIDENTIAL PARENT OR SHARED PARENTING ORDER

Names of Parties: Case No.:Suzannah Wayland Judge:Scott WaylandThe following parent was designated asthe residential parent and legal custodian: _Mother Father X SharedNo. of Minor Children 2

la. Annual gross Income from employment or, whendetermined appropriate by the court or agency, averageannual gross income from employment over areasonable period of years (Exclude overtime, bonuses,self-employment Income, or commissions)

COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN IIIFATHER MOTHER COMBINED

75,000 20,000

b. Amount of overtime, bonuses and commissions 0 0FATHER MOTIIER

Year 3 (Three years ago) 0 0

Year 2 (Two years ago) 0 0Year 1 (Last calendar year) 0 0AVERAGE 0 0(Include In Col. I and/or Col. II the average of the three years or the year 1 amount, whichever isless, if there exists a reasonable expectation that the total earnings from overtime and/or bonusesduring the current calendar year will meet or exceed the amount that is the lower of the average ofthe three years or the year 1 amount. If, however, there exists a reasonable expectation that thetotal earnings from overtime/bonuses during the calendar year will be less than the lower of theaverage of the three years or the year 1 amount, Include the amount reasonably expected 'to beearned this year.)

2. For Self-Employment Income:a. Gross receipts from business 0 0b. Ordinary and necessary business expenses 0 0c. 5.6% of adjusted gross income or the actualmarginai difference between the actual rate paid by theself-employed individual and the FICA rate 0 0

d. Adjusted gross income from self-employment(Subtract the sum of 2b and 2c from 2a) o 0

3. Annual Income from Interest and dividends(whether or not taxable) 0 0

4. Annual income from unemployment compensation 0 05. Annual income from workers' compensation,disability insurance benefits, or Soclal SecurityDisability/Retirement benefits 0 0

Worksheet Sole/SharedPage 2 of 4 Date:

6. Other annual Incomea. Other Taxable Incb. Cash Perksc. Spousal support received7. Total annual gross income (add lines la, lb, 2d & 3-6)

ADJUSTMENTS TO INCOME8. Adjustment for minor children born to oradopted by either parent and another parent whoare living with this parent; adjustment does notapply to stepchildren (number of children timesfederal income tax exemotion less child supportrecetved, not to exceed the federal tax exemption)

9. Annual court-ordered support paid for other children10. Annual court-ordered spousal support paid to anyspouse or former spouse

11 Amount of local income taxes actually paid orestimated to be paid12. Mandatory work-related deductlons such as uniondues, uniform fees, etc (Not including taxes,Social Security or retirement)a. Mandatory Work Related/Other Deductionb. Mandatory Work Related/Other Deduction13. Total gross Income adjustments (add lines 8through 12)

14. Adjusted annual gross income (subtract Iine 13 fromline 7)

Case No.:COLUMN I

FATHERCOLUMN II COLUMN III

MOTHER COMBINED

0 00 00 9,000

75,000 29,000

0 0

0 0

9 ,000 01,500 400

0 00 0

10,500 400

64,500 28,60015. Combined annual Income that Is basis for child 93,100support order (Add line 14, Col. I and Col. II)16. Percentage of parent's Income to total Income:a. Father (divide line 14, CoI.I, by line 15, CoI.III) 69.28%b. Mother (divide line 14, CoI.II, by line 15, CoI.III) 30.72%

17a. Basic combined child support obligation(From schedule on income up to $150,000 - Amountsbetween schedule values are calculated) 15,72117b. Support on Income over $150,000 0

Income for which support is to be applied 0

Percent to be used on income over $150,000 0.00a/o17c. Total child support obligation 15,721

Worksheet Sole/SharedPage 3 of 4 Date:

18. Annual support obligation per parenta. Father-Multiply line 17c, CoI.III by line 16ab. Mother-Multiply line 17c, Coi.III by line 16b

19. Annual child care expenses for the children who arethe subject of this order that are work, employmenttraining, or education related, as approved by the courtor agency (deduct tax credit from annual costs, whetheror not claimed)

a. Less federal child care tax creditb. Less OH child care tax creditc. Net child care costs

20. Marginal, out-of-pocket costs, necessary to providefor health insurance for the children who are the subjectof this order21. ADJUSTMENTS TO CHILD SUPPORTFather (Only if obligor or shared parenting)

a. Additions: Line 16a times the sum of amountsshown on line 19c, Col II and line 20, Col II

c. Subtractions: Une 16b times sum of amountsshown on line 19c, Col. I and line 20, Col I

Mother (Only if obligor or shared parenting)b. Additions: Line 16b tinies the sum of

amounts shown on line 19c, Col I and 11ne 20, Coi I)

d. Subtractions: Line 16a times sum of amountsshown on line 19c, Col. II and line 20, Col II

22. OBLIGATION AFTER ADJUSTMENTS TOCHILD SUPPORT

a. Father: Line 18a plus or minus the differencebetween fine 21a minus line 21c

b. Mother: Line 18b plus or minus the differencebetween line 21b minus line 21d23. ACTUAL ANNUAL OBLIGATION

a. Line 22 for the obligor parentb. Any non-means-tested benefits, including Social

Security and Veterans' benefits, paid to and receivedby a child or a person on behalf of the child due todeath, disabllity, or retirement of the parent

c. Actual annual obligation (subtract fine 23b from23a)

Case No.:COLUMN I

FATHER

COLUMN II COLUMN III

MOTHER COMBINED

10,8924,829

0 0

0 00 00 00 2,400

1,663

0

0

1,663

12,555

3,166

12,555

0

12,555

,

Worksheet Sole/Shared Case No.:Page 4 of 4 Date: COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN III

24a. Deviation from sole residential parent supportamount shown on line 23c if amount would be uniustor inappropriate: (See section 3119.23 of the RevisedCode.) (Specific facts and monetarv values must bestated.)Reason:

24b. Deviation from shared parenting order:(See section 3119.23 and 3119.24 of theRevised Code.) (Specific facts Including amountof time children spend with each parent, abilityof each parent to maintain adequate housinq forchildren, and each parent's expenses forchildren must be stated to justify deviation.)

Reason:

FATHER MOTHER COMBINED

0

0

25 FINAL FIGURE: (This amount reflects finalannual ch(Id support obligation; line 23c plus or

minus any amounts indicated In line 24a or 24b.)Father Obligor 12,555 0

26 FOR DECREE: Child support per month(divide obligor's annual share by 12) plus anyprocessing charge. 1,046.25Including 2% proSessing charge 1,067.18Comments:

PREPARED BY:COUNSEL:Representing

CSEA:

PRO SE:

OTHER:WORKSHEET HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AGREED TO:

MOTHER DATE

FATHER DATE

RULE 29.03 VISITATION FOR 2005 (REVISED DECEMBER 6, 2004)WESTERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT

WEEKENDS The Parties shall alternate weekends. Weekends shall be from Friday at 6:00p.m., until Sunday at-6:00 p.m The Mother shall have the first weekend after Christmas break(which for 2005 commences on Friday January 8, 2005). The Father shall have the secondweekend after Christmas break. This pattem shall continue throughout the year.

SPRING BREAK The Father shall have spring break in odd-numbered years and the Mothershall have spring break in even-numbered years. Spring break shall include the days the chiklhas off from school and the weekend either at the beginning or at the end of the spring vacationthat would normally be that parent's weekend on the every other weekend rotating schedule, butnot both.

For Westerville school district, spring break in 2005 is from Friday March 25 tbroughFriday April 1. The weekend during spring break is the Father's weekend and the weekend afterSpring break is the Mother's weekend. Spring break for the Father is from Thursday March 24,2005 at 6:00 p.m., until Friday April 1 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND The Mother shall have Memorial Day weekend in odd-numbered years and the Father shall have Memorial Day weekend in even-numbered years.Menwrial Day weekend shall be from the Friday before Memorial Day at 6:00 p.m., untilMemorial Day at 8:00 p.m.

SUMMERS The Parties shall alternate weeks during the summer from Friday at 6:00 p.m.,until the following Friday at 6:00 p.m. The Mother has the first week commencing Friday June10, 2005. The Father's first alternating week shall commence on Friday June 17, 2005. Summervisitation ends on Friday August 26, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.

INDEPENDENCE DAY The Father shall have Independence Day in odd-numbered yearsand the Mother shall have Independence Day in even-numbered years. Independence Day shallbe from 9:00 a.m, until 11:00 p.m.

LABOR DAY WEEKEND The Mother shall have Labor Day weekend in odd-numberedyears and the Father shall have Labor Day weekend in even-numbered years. Labor Dayweekend shall be from the Friday before Labor Day at 6:00 p.m, until Labor Day at 8:00 p.m.

THANKSGIVING BREAK The Mother shall have Thanksgiving Beak in odd-numbered yearsand the Father shall have Thanksgiving Break in even-numbered years. Thanksgiving break shallbe from the last day of school before the break until the Friday after Thanksgiving at 6:00 p.m.T'hanksgiving break shall include the weekend after Thanksgiving (from Friday at 6:00 p.m.,untiT Sunday at 6:00 p.m.) only if that weekend would otherwise be that parent's weekend on theevery other weekend rotating schedule. In 2005, the weekend after Thanksgiving is the Mother'sweekend and thus Thanksgiving Break ends on the Sunday after Thanksgiving at 6:00 p.m. In

1

2005, Thanksgiving break for Westerville school district has already been deternuned and is fromWednesday November 23 at 6:QO p.m., tbrough Sunday November 27 at 6:00 p.m

FIRST HALF OF CHRISTMAS BREAK AND CHRISTMAS EVE The Father shall havethe first half of Christmas break and Christmas Eve in odd-numbered years and the Mother shallhave the first half of Clnistmas break and Christmas Eve 'tneven-numbered years. In 2005, thefirst half of Cbristtnas break is from Wednesday December 21, 2005 at 6:00 p.m, throughWednesday December 28, 2005 at noon. Christmas Eve is from noon on December 24 unti19:00a.m., on Christmas Day.

SECOND HALF OF CHRISTMAS BREAK AND CHRISTMAS DAY The Mother shallhave the second half of Christmas break and Cbristmas Day in odd-numbered years and theFather shall have the second half of Christmas break and Christmas Day in even-numbered years.The second half of Christmas break shall be from Wednesday December 28, 2005 at noon untilMonday January 2, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Christmas Day is from 9:00 a.m, until 10:00 p.m, onDecember 25.

WEEKNIGHTS Each parent shall have compatrionship with the children who wouldotherwise be in the possession of the other parent, every Wednesday from 6:00 p.m, until 8:00p.m. The Wednesday night visitation shall not take precedence over other days specificallyallocated to either parent such as spring break, weeks during the summer during which the otherparent is out of the area on vacation with the chiid, Thanksgiving break, Christmas break, andChristmas Day.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY, PRESIDENTS' DAY, EASTER, MOTHER'S DAY,FATHER'S DAY, AND OTHER DAYS OFF FROM SCHOOL. Under the alternatingweekend schedule, Martin Luther King Day is allocated to the Father, Presidents' Day isallocated to the Mother, Easter is allocated to the Father, and Father's Day is allocated to theFather. Mother's Day would be allocated to the Father. In order that the children can spendsome time with the Mother on Mother's Day, the Father's weekend shall end 1:00 on SundayMay 8, 2005.

In the Westerville school district in 2005, other days off from school include the day afterMartin Luther King Day, Tuesday January 18, 2005, teacher professional day and Friday October21, 2005 COTA day. These days shall be allocated to the parent whose weekend adjoins the day:Tuesday January 18, 2005 fo the Father and Friday October 21, 2005 to the Father.

CALENDAR -REVISION DATE Attached is a calendar that sets forth the days allocated tothe Father in blue and the days allocated to the Mother in magenta. In the event of any conflict ofcalendars or rules, the calendar or rule with the latest revision date controls.

2

„uu rvi vveecenas. Hoikiays, and Extended tlmes To Be Used WithLocal Rule 29,03 For 2005 (Revised December 6, 2004) Westerville

JANUARY 2005

FEBRUARY 2005.

MARCH 2005

APRII.2005

MAY 2005

M T W T F S S

25 26 27 8 2

JUNE 2005

JULY 2005

AUGUST 2005

SEPTEMBER 2005

M T W T F S S

^306

1213

19 20

OCTOBER 2005

^6 127 ^28 ^29 131

4 5 6 7

10

1718192< -

24125^

14

8

151

21222

26

NOVEMBER 2005

DECEMBER 2005

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO

Scott WaylandCase No: 04 DRA 03-104

Plaintiff,

v

Susannah M. Wayland

Defendant

^JUDGMENT ENTRYDECREE OF DIVORCF,^

°m

r--I^rY

r--{-r*s-0!p

-nfytw i°_-^rn

r ^o

This matter came on for trial March 2, March 3, March 4, March 8, and March 9, 2005 °

before the Magistrate of this Court who issued a Decision herein on April 18, 2005. The Wife

filed objections thereto on May 2, 2005. Eagle's Nest Ranch filed objections on May 12, 2005.

The Husband filed objections thereto on May 12, 2005. Upon consideration thereof, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:

Both Parties be granted a divorce from each other on the grounds of

incompatibility.

The parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children be allocated

primarily to the Wife and the Wife be designated as the residential parent and the legal custodian

of the children.

3. The Husband have reasonable rights of visitation as provided in local rule a copy

of which is attached hereto. The local rule be amended with respect to Michael to make theCommon Pleas CourrDelaware Co., Ohio

1 hereby certifv the within be a truedy origilk..i on file in this offcc.J^}r ^tqpoplop^.Clerk of Courts

Depubj

weekend visitation from Thursday at 6:00 p.m, to Sunday at 6:00 p.m, (with no Wednesday

visitations during that week) and to make the Wednesdayvisitation in the off week overnight

from after school on Wednesday to Thursday moming at school or daycare. This pattern would

be reversed during the summer except that Michael would be with the Wife for the first full week

after school and for the last full week before school starts. In addition each Party can schedule a

summer vacation from 1 week up to 2 weeks during which the other Party shall not have

visitation if the vacationing Party is in fact traveling out of state.

Torry shall have visitation with her Father on Monday evening from 6:00 p.m., to 8:00

p.m. It is mandatory that this visitation take place.

MaAl°'yC.

4. The Husband shall pay child support in the amount ofUZZLMpir month

r)commenciugti6*"1^^:^:q9¢. Child support shall be paid through the Delaware County Child

Support Enforcement Agency with proper poundage by proper enforcement order. Child support

shall terminate upon the child reaching the age of 18. However, the child support obligation and

order shall remain in effect beyond the child's 18th birthday and thereafter up to the child's 19th

birthday as long as the child continuously attends any recognized and accredited high school on

a full-time basis. The Husband shall continue to pay support under the order including during

seasonal vacation periods until the order terminates.

The Husband may claim the children as income tax dependents provided the Husband is

current in child support for the children conunencing May 1, 2005. The Wife shall execute any

documents necessary to effectuate this award The award of income tax dependency is

reviewable with support.

2

jek

5. Both Parties shall keep the children beneficiaries of his or her employer-provided

health insurance and provide allnecessary forms and instructions to the other. Both Parties must

use covered services when reasonably available and must comply with all reasonable

requirements of the insurer. Employer-provided health insurance means health, dental, optical

etc., insurance available at the present time or in the future through the current or any future

employer at reasonable cost.

6. The Wife shall pay the first $100.00 per calendar year per child of all reasonable

uninsured medical etc., expenses for the children. All such expenses in excess of $100.00 per

year shall be paid 50% by the Husband and 50% by the Wife. Medical etc., expenses include

medical, dental, orthodontic, optical, prescription drug, psychological, and psychiatric expenses.

7. The real estate of the Parties located at 5549 Quail Hollow Way, Westerville,

Ohio shall be sold at such price, using such agents, in such manner and on such terms as the

Parties may agree. The proceeds of the sale shall be paid as follows:

(i) to the usual costs of sale;

(ii) to the debts on the premises to Countrywide and Bank One000"""

(iii) to the Parties equally, adjusted by the amount that either Party may then be inarrears on any obligation under the final Decree herein. In the event that there is adeficiency in the sale, the Husband shall pay the deficiency.

Until the house is sold, the Wife shall have exclusive possession thereof. The Husband

shall pay the mortgage payment to Countrywide and Bank One, real estate taxes that are billed

and due before closing, insurance, and ordinary maintenance and repairs on the premises until

sale.

3

It is the intent of this provisiori to effectuate a sale that is fair to both Parties in sale price,

tei•ms; and the timing of the sale. This court shall retain jurisdiction over the mamer and terms

of the sale including the price, the interim obligations of the Parties, and the division of proceeds

in the event of disagreement thereto.

8. The real estate of the Parties located at 53 W. Mound Street, Canal Winchester,

41*-111 Ohio be awarded to the Husband.

9. The Husband be awarded the 2004 BMW Z-4.

t"ax liability asses`sed` a"g'aiiist ker'Uy her'retention o'f th4 van.

HysWad witbin:2 weeks of the' date hereof L Tlie Plaintiff be heid responsible for any additionat:^

,b^'aLded,tk^-^^,ara&;,I£^he,Defendan^ daes..nbt vwisk.tttevazk.^}}e z^ay r^tutnstllp,vait 1:atk

unpaid ken or lease payments. '11h^,D6ftiia nt=statefi itI kef olijections tkat sh^ dogs not wls

10. The Wife be awarded the 2003 Dodge Caravan. The Husband provide a means

that the 2003 Dodge Caravan can be transferred to the Wife without tax or other penalty to the

Wife. Any lien or lease payments be current at the time of the transfer. The Wife assume any

11. Each Party be awarded the other items of taugible personal property currently in

9-A

his or her respective possession.

12. The Husband shall keep the nvnor children of the Parties equal beneficiaries of

insurance in the face amount of $200,000 until the youngest child reaches the age of 18.

4

13. The Husband be awarded the following items of intangible personal property:

V

Charles Schwab, checking account, joint, #9843, $2,245.87 @ January 31, 2005

GE, Interest Plus, savings account, Husband, $717.87 as of 9/24/04


Met Life, ins., on life of Husband, face amount $260,000, cash value, $421.98 (12/31/02)



GE Savings and Security Plan, 401(k), $35,200, 12/31/03

Dainiler Chrysler, SSP, $31,927.44, March 31, 2004 (Wife's Exhibit J)

Income Tax Refund, 2003, Husband, $11,688

'/a Pepsi, ESOP, Merrill Lynch, if it exists

14. The Wife be awarded the following items of intangible personal property:

DCB, checking account, Wife, #1288, $49,000, now $5,000


Savings Bond, Series I, Wife, 10/2001, face anwunt $5,000

Columbia Funds, joint, $2,395.98 (12/31/03); $2,421.45 as of 11/18/04 (Wife's Exhibit E)


Stanley Account Value Plan, $67,480.92 (12/27/04)(This transfer shall be made by QDRO or other tax-free exchange, if necessary)

Stanley Supplemental Account Value Plan, $18,630.21 (12/27/04)(This transfer shall be made by QDRO or other tax-free exchange, if necessary)

AIG, Valic, Tax Sheltered Annuity, Wife, $783.70 as of 12/31/04

Waddell - Reed, (Berkley School District) 403(B), Wife, $12,588.54 as of June 30, 2004,

5

Mainstay, 403(B), Wife, $12,054.99 as of November 2004

.____Income Tax Refund, 2003, Wife; $2,819

'/z Pepsi, ESOP, Merrill Lynch, if it exists

15. Eagle's Nest Ranch and/or Providence Acquisitions be awarded the following

items of intangible personal property:

Canal Banking Center, checking account, Eagle's Nest Ranch and Academy, #7066, $2,000

Charles Schwab, Eagles Nest Rancb- $81,585 (9/03). The restraining order with respectthereto be released

NY Life (First Colony) ins., on life of Husband, face amount $4,000,000 (owned by Eagle'sNest Ranch and Academy, beneficiary Providence Acquisitions), see Exhibit S

Providence Acquistions, LLC v Liberty Christian Fellowship

16. The Husband pay the following debts of the Parties and hold the Wife harniless

thereon:

Creditor Purpose of Debt Balance Monthlyor collateral Payment

Countrywide Mortgage Home mortgage 381,556.83 (2/16) 2,081.81

Bank One Home Equity 84,699.47 (1/9)

(The above 2 debts be paid as provided in paragraph 7 hereof)

HNB first mortgage, Alspach 2,337,356.00 13,627.53

Dave McIlrath Alspach Road 400,000.00

US Bank 2004 BMW, lease 40,524.00 584.24

Bank One visa, Husband, since 10,000.00

US Bank

separation

visa, Husband, since 5,000.00separation

6

Children's Hospital MRI for Michaelany other debt that the Husband has incurred-- -

1,563.31

17. The Wife pay the following debts of the Parties and hold the Husband harmless

thereon:

Creditor Purpose of Debt Balance Monthlyor collateral Payment

Bank One visa, Wife, #2092

any other debt that the Wife has incurred

18. The Husband pay the Wife the sum of $6,000

equalize the property division within 28 days of the date hereof.

19. The Husband shall pay spousal support o

imwiiiber

10,000.00

nionth effective

`fO'B. Spousal support shall be paid tbrough the Delaware County Child Support

Enforcement Agency with proper poundage by wage assignment. Spousal support shall

terminate on the earliest of the following events: 1) the death of either Party; 2) 84 montbly

payments (which may be paid in advance); 3) the Wife's remarriage or cohabitation with a

non-related adult niale. Spousal support shall be considered as income to the recipient and

deductible to the payor for income tax purposes. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify this

award based on changed circumstances of the Parties as defined in Section 3105.18 of the Ohio

Revised Code.

20. A restraining order be placed on the following assets awarded to the Husband:

^ Charles Schwab, IRA, Husband, $35,924.68 as of December 31, 2004.


7

Dairnler Chrysler, SSP, $31,927.44, March 31, 2004 (Wife's Exhibit J)

Mainstay, 403(B); Husband; $12,054.99 as ofNovember 2004

The Court expects that the Husband may have to liquidate one or more of these assets

and may do so to pay child support and spousal support. The Husband may not do so for any

other reason. The Court expects the Husband to use these assets to remain current on child

support and spousal support.

21. The temporary order be terminated effective Apri130, 2005. Any arrearages or

overages be preserved.

22. Each Party promptly and properly do any act and execute any document

necessary to carry out the provisions of the final Decree herein.

23. Court costs be paid from deposits and any excess costs be paid equally by both

Parties within 90 days of the date hereof.

24. Each Party pay his and her own attomey fees.

25. All other objections are expressly overruled.

8

Andrea R. Yagoda, Attorney for the Wife

Anthony M. Heald, Attorney for the Husband

Douglas R. Jennings, Attorney for Eagle's Nest Ranch

Titnothy I. Flahive, guardian ad litem

The Delaware County Child Support Bnforcement Agency

9

Summary Of Alimony/Child Support Alternative Cases For 2005Last Name Wa land Iy

10: H75;W20 SS 750 CS 1046 11: SS 1,333.33 CS 1,212.16 12 SS 2,000 CS 1,359Annual Ficiures Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah1 Cash Income 75,000 20,000 100,000 20,000 125,000 20,0002 Children with: 0 2 0 2 0 23 Child Support (12,555) 12,555 (14,546) 14,546 (16,308) 16,3084 Nimony (9,D00) 9,000 (16,000) 16,000 (24,000) 24,0005 Non!Taxable Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Cash to Meet Living Expenses 36,265 36,603 44,686 44,232 52,951 52,4177 Total Cash for Both 72,868 88,918 105,3688 Budget Cash 0 0 0 0 0 09 Over (Under) Budget 36,265 36,603 44,686 44,232 52,951 52,41710 Share Cash 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

11 Filing Status Single Hd Hsld Single Hd Hsld Single Hd Hsld12 No',^ of Children Age 17 & Over 0 0 0 0 0 013 No':of Children Under 17 2 0 2 0 2 014 Marginal Fed + State Tax % 30.2% 19.5% 29.5% 19.5% 32.3% 20.2%15 Federal + State Tax 9,942 3,022 15,738 4,384 21,848 5,96116 Total Taxes for Both 12,964 20,122 27,80917 Tax Savings Exemptions for Children +Under' 17 Child Cr

3,775 0 3,401 0 2,632 0

18 Tax Changes from Alimony 2,718 (1,694) 5,877 (3,056) 8,592 (4,633)19 Guideline SupportComments:

12,555 14,546 16,308

February 4, 2006 03:07 PM© 2005 West, a Thomson bustness. All rights reserved.

Summary Of Alimony/Child Support Alternative Cases For 2005landst Name WaL ya

7: H150;W20; No SS; CS 1792 8: H150;W20 SS 3250 CS 1317 9: SS 2500 CS 1426; W dmAnnual Fgures Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah Scott Suzannah

1 Cash Income 150,000 20,000 150,000 20,000 150,000 20,0002 Children with: 0 2 0 2 0 23 Child Support (21,505) 21,505 (15,800) 15,800 (17,116) 17,1164 Alimony 0 0 (39,000) 39,000 (30,000) 30,0005 Non Taxable Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Cash to Meet Living Expenses 79,040 38,247 58,961 63,009 61,527 61,1497 Total Cash for Both 117,287 121,970 122,6768 Budget Cash 0 0 0 0 0 09 Over (Under) Budget 79,040 38,247 58,961 63,009 61,527 61,14910 Share Cash 67% 33% 48% 520/o 50% 50%

11 Filing Status Single Hd Hsid Single Hd Hsld Single Hd Hsld12 No. of Children Age 17 & Over 0 0 0 0 0 013 No:of Children Under 17 2 0 2 0 0 214 Marginal Fed + State Tax % 36.0% 13.7% 33.0% 30.2% 33.0% 20.2%15 Federal + State Tax 38,700 1,328 25,484 9,861 30,602 4,03716 Total Taxes for Both 40,028 35,345 34;63917 Tax Savings Exemptions for Children + 1,878 0 2,150 0 0 3,135Under17 Child Cr

18 Tax Changes from Alimony 0 0 13,216 (8,533) 9,960 (5,146)19 Guideline Support 21,505 15,800 17,116Comments:

February 4, 2006 03:07 PM© 2005 West, a Thomson business. All rights reserved.

supreme ccum, nr nuin margui j. vie311gel, clerk apr 1 g … margui j. vie311gel, clerk supreme...

Documents