Bradley v. Bradley

2021-Ohio-2514

GWEN M. BRADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLINT BRADLEY, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 109792

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

July 22, 2021

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-16-362721

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Rosenthal | Thurman | Lane, L.L.C., and Scott S. Rosenthal for appellee.

Clint Bradley III, pro se.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Clint Bradley III ("Husband") brings this appeal challenging the trial court's judgment entry of divorce. Husband argues that the trial court erred in failing to promptly rule on motions or denying motions as moot, erred in unequally allocating property, erred in admitting evidence and testimony at trial, and erred in making various factual determinations based on the evidence and testimony presented. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Husband and plaintiff-appellee Gwen Bradley ("Wife") married in July 1994. They had two children during their marriage: S.B., born in March 1998, and C.B., born in October 2002.

{¶ 3}On June 23, 2016, Wife filed a complaint for divorce. Mutual restraining orders were issued against both parties on June 23, 2016. Husband filed an answer and counterclaim on July 1, 2016.

{¶ 4}On September 22, 2016, the trial court issued a temporary support order under which the parties were ordered to split expenses related to the marital home. The parties were not ordered to pay child support to one another.

{¶ 5} The matter proceeded to trial in October 2017. Hearings were held on October 11, 12, and 13, 2017. Several witnesses testified at trial, including Wife, Husband, the minor child's (C.B.) guardian ad litem ("GAL"), Wife's attorney, and Dr. Steven Neuhaus.

{¶ 6} The GAL submitted a report and recommendation. Dr. Neuhaus also submitted a report.

{¶ 7} In December 2017, Wife requested that the matter be reopened for further testimony. In her motion to reopen, Wife asserted that she hired an accountant and discovered, after trial, that she was jointly liable with appellant for federal income taxes exceeding $600, 000. Husband opposed Wife's motion to reopen, alleging that Wife was aware of the tax liability based on her involvement in compiling relevant tax information and signing tax returns between 1994 and 2015.

{¶ 8} Additional hearings were held on April 30, 2018, and July 10, 2018. The scope of these additional hearings was expressly limited to tax liability issues.

{¶ 9} The magistrate's decision was issued on June 11, 2019. Therein, the magistrate found that Wife "fully and completely disclosed all marital property, separate property, and any other assets, debts, income and expenses subject to the jurisdiction of this Court." The magistrate found that Husband did the exact opposite: "[Husband] employed every possible measure imaginable to both conceal his financial information from [Wife] and the Court, and confuse the financial issues present in this case."

{¶ 10} Based on Husband's attempts to conceal his financial information from the trial court, the magistrate had to calculate Husband's income by examining bank records and deposits made into bank accounts.

{¶ 11} The magistrate recommended that the parental rights and responsibilities be primarily allocated to Wife, and that Wife be designated as the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child (C.B.). The magistrate's decision also addressed the issues of (1) division of property and debts, (2) spousal support, (3) allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, including parenting time, (4) child support, (5) attorney fees, (6) GAL fees, and (7) outstanding motions. The relevant aspects of the magistrate's decision will be addressed in the analysis of Husband's assignments of error.

{¶ 12} Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision on June 25, 2019. He supplemented his objections on November 6, 2019. Husband raised the following 14 objections to the magistrate's decision:

1. The magistrate erred in determining [Husband's] income.

2. The magistrate erred in calculating child support.

3. The magistrate erred in denying [Husband's] motion to show cause (parenting time) filed on June 6, 2018.

4. The magistrate erred in denying [Husband's] motion to show cause (temporary support) filed October 10, 2017.

5. The magistrate erred in denying [Husband's] motion to show cause (temporary support) filed January 10, 2018.

6. The magistrate erred in denying [Husband's] motion to show cause (temporary support) filed May 5, 2018.

7. The magistrate erred in determining parenting time.

8. The magistrate erred in determining that no arrearage for temporary support existed as of July 10, 2018 (the last day of trial).

9. The magistrate erred in determining that [Husband] has the ability to post a cash bond of $5, 000.

10. The magistrate erred in failing to address the Bradley Group and to consider, in determining [Wife's] total income, whether [Wife] received additional income from the Bradley Group.

11. The magistrate erred in determining that [Wife] should be awarded $10, 000.00 in attorney fees.

12. The magistrate erred in failing to address the joint tax liabilities of the parties.

13. The magistrate erred in failing to address outstanding student loan debt in [Husband's] name.

14. The magistrate erred in determining that [Husband] was solely responsible for the outstanding debt associated with the GMC Acadia and 2013 Jeep.

{¶ 13} Wife filed a brief in opposition to Husband's objections on January 2, 2020. On April 16, 2020, the trial court issued a judgment entry ruling on Husband's objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court sustained Husband's thirteenth objection to the magistrate's decision, in which he argued that the magistrate erred in failing to address the outstanding student loan debt existing in Husband's name. Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that it was equitable that Husband bear responsibility for all student loan debt in his name, and that he indemnify and hold Wife harmless from such debts. The trial court overruled Husband's remaining objections to the magistrate's decision.

{¶ 14} On May 15, 2020, Husband filed an appeal challenging the trial court's April 16, 2020 judgment. (Bradley v. Bradley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109728.) On June 4, 2020, this court dismissed Husband's appeal for lack of a final appealable order. In dismissing the appeal, this court explained that the trial court only ruled on Husband's objections to the magistrate's decision and had not adopted or modified the magistrate's decision.

{¶ 15} On June 17, 2020, the trial court issued its judgment entry of divorce. Therein, the trial court adopted the magistrate's June 11, 2019 decision as modified in the trial court's judgment entry of divorce. The trial court's judgment entry of divorce also addressed and ruled upon Husband's objections to the magistrate's decision.

{¶ 16} As it did in its April 16, 2020 judgment entry ruling on Husband's objections to the magistrate's decision, the trial court sustained Husband's thirteenth objection, but concluded that "it is equitable that [Husband] bear responsibility for all student loan debt in his name, and that he indemnify and hold [Wife] harmless for such debts." The trial court overruled Husband's remaining objections, including Husband's objection that the magistrate erred in determining Husband's income. The trial court concluded that the magistrate's determination that Husband's income was $129, 550.62, based on deposits into Husband's personal bank account that exceeded Wife's documented income, was supported by the evidence.

{¶ 17} Like the magistrate's decision, the trial court's judgment entry of divorce addressed the issues of (1) division of property and debts, (2) spousal support, (3) allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, including parenting time, (4) child support, (5) attorney fees, (6) GAL fees, and (7) outstanding motions. The relevant aspects of the trial court's decision will be addressed in the analysis of Husband's assignments of error.

{¶ 18} Husband filed the instant appeal, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109792, on June 29, 2020. The trial court's June 17, 2020 "judgment entry of divorce" is the only judgment entry identified in Husband's notice of appeal.

{¶ 19} In this appeal, Husband assigns the following 44 errors for review.

1. The trial court erred in establishing [Husband's] income.

2. The trial court erred by not considering all evidence submitted during relevant hearings in this case when rendering its final decision.

3. The trial court erred in limiting witness examinations.

4. The trial court erred in establishing [Wife's] income.

5. The trial court erred in establishing grounds for divorce.

6. The trial court erred in establishing that no support arrearage existed as of July 10, 2018.

7. The trial court erred in its allocation of marital debt.

8. The trial court erred in its finding that [Husband] concealed financial information from [Wife] and the court and attempted to confuse the financial issues present in this case.

9. The trial court erred in finding that denial of parenting time was not applicable in determining its allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

10. The trial court erred in finding that no probative evidence was presented to prove that either parent has ever denied the other any parenting time.

11. The trial court erred in finding [Husband] did not provide any credible evidence of his true and accurate income for the years 2016 and 2017.

12. The trial court erred in determining that no evidence of child support

...