Downing v. Downing

1

2023-Ohio-2673

GEORGE DOWNING, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAROLYN DOWNING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. C-220338

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

August 2, 2023

Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division Trial No. DR-1900545

Michael J. Davis, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Goldberg Evans LLC and Shawn M. Evans, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Bock Judge.

{¶1} In this appeal, defendant-appellant Carolyn Downing challenges the validity of a prenuptial agreement ("Agreement"),^[1] signed by Carolyn and plaintiff-appellee George Downing. For the following reasons we overrule Carolyn's four assignments of error and affirm the judgment below.

I. Facts and Procedure

{¶2} George and Carolyn married in June 2013. Both previously had been married and had children from those previous marriages. In 2015, Carolyn gave birth to the couple's daughter. Their relationship eventually soured and the two separated in 2019. George filed a complaint for divorce and, relevant here, asserted that "the parties are subject to a prenuptial agreement." Carolyn answered and maintained that the Agreement was invalid and unenforceable.

{¶3} According to the Agreement, George and Carolyn mutually agreed that "[a]ll property, including real or personal property, the income from such property, and the investments and re-investments of such property," as identified in exhibits attached to the Agreement, would remain separate property. They waived any ownership or right to the separate property of the other, including any pension benefits. And they agreed that all income, "earnings[,] and accumulations" during the marriage would remain separate property. Likewise, all savings, investments, retirement accounts, "including any appreciation, income, or other increases to such property" would remain separate property.

{¶4} George and Carolyn each attached a financial information "exhibit" to the Agreement, which identified both parties' categories and amounts of assets and liabilities. The final page contained two signatures, dated May 31, 2013. Carolyn affixed her signature, "verify[ing] that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."

{¶5} Roughly one year into the litigation, George and Carolyn filed a joint motion asking the court to vacate a hearing on George's motion to enforce the Agreement, explaining that "[t]he parties agree that the antenuptial agreement executed by the parties shall be deemed valid and enforceable in this matter and that the hearing scheduled will not be necessary." But Carolyn eventually hired new counsel and she subsequently moved to withdraw her consent to the joint motion. Rather, she claimed that the Agreement was unconscionable and a product of both fraud and duress.

Hearing on the validity of the Agreement

{¶6} The magistrate held a hearing on the validity of the Agreement. Carolyn, George, and Carolyn's brother John Kallenberger testified.

{¶7} Carolyn described the events leading up to the marriage. According to her, George proposed in early 2013. She described the wedding planning process as rushed. While the Agreement states that it was drafted on April 19, 2013, she had no memory of its creation. Rather, George created it. In fact, she testified that she had no part in creating her financial-disclosure exhibit. She testified that George initiated the discussion of the Agreement and explained that he "trusts absolutely no one." She recalled hesitating because she believed "marriage is based on trust and love."

{¶8} The two continued to discuss the idea of a prenuptial agreement before George presented Carolyn with a copy of the Agreement on "May 19th, the day that I signed it." She also testified that she was first given a copy on May 31. According to Carolyn, the two were arguing when George "said that we could not get married unless I signed this." In tears, she "didn't even read it" and "just signed it and threw it at him." She testified that she was under duress as George was "breathing down [her] throat." Carolyn testified that George "destroyed [the Agreement] in front of me" roughly one year after the wedding. Specifically, he "ripped it up and burned it in a fire pit" in 2014.

{¶9} After the birth of their child, Carolyn quit her job. Initially, she debated resigning from her job when George made clear that she "will not be working for at least six months, the first six months after [their child] is born." She had previously worked as a registered nurse and had managed a staff of approximately 65 nurses. At the time of the hearing, she was working part time as a nurse.

{¶10} Kallenberger, Carolyn's brother, testified that Carolyn was opposed to the idea of the Agreement before the wedding. He recalled asking George on the day of the wedding "what changed?" George answered, "I had to tear up the prenuptial agreement."

{¶11} George offered a different version of events. He testified that the conversation with Kallenberger did not take place. And he recalled drafting the Agreement with Carolyn using a program titled Family Lawyer on his home computer. According to George, "I nor she knew a lot of the legal jargon, but [the program] would ask questions in more of a lay term and just fill in the blanks." He testified that she provided every piece of financial information on the disclosure page.

{¶12} According to George, he provided Carolyn with a copy of the Agreement "a week and a half before she signed it" and disputed Carolyn's testimony that the wedding was rushed. He recalled that she had the Agreement for roughly one week before he told her "we are going to need to get this done." While "she voiced frustration for the first time then," he asked her again and "[s]he came down from upstairs and threw it on the island and said [t]here, it's signed." And according to George, the two agreed to not consult a lawyer knowing that the Agreement states "you have had an opportunity to have this reviewed by legal counsel." George testified that Carolyn knew he experienced financial issues in his first marriage and that she remarked to him, "I understand why you feel this way and why you would need this [Agreement]." George admitted telling Carolyn he would not marry her unless she signed the Agreement.

{¶13} After the wedding, George recalled that Carolyn asked him to destroy the Agreement "if not daily,[] at least weekly." He "couldn't take hearing about it anymore, so [he] burned a copy, which she said after, you know, that was probably just a copy. And [he was] thinking, hmmm. But, yes, it was a copy." He admitted that he led her to believe that he burned the original.

The magistrate and domestic relations court found the Agreement enforceable.

{¶14} The magistrate determined that the parties' joint motion to vacate the hearing on the motion to enforce the Agreement was "a motion and not an agreed entry," as it was unsigned and not a court order. Next, the magistrate found the Agreement valid and enforceable. First, the magistrate found that Carolyn had "at least nineteen days to read the document and seek legal counsel." Second, both parties disclosed their "financial positions to each other and memorialized them in a Prenup." Third, Carolyn "admitted during cross examination that she didn't read the Prenup and did not seek out an attorney because she wanted to get married and she believed marriage was forever." Carolyn objected to the magistrate's decision.

{¶15} The domestic relations court held oral arguments and overruled Carolyn's objections. The court concluded that Carolyn had entered into the Agreement "freely without fraud, duress, or coercion." Specifically, the court reasoned that both parties are educated, neither party retained counsel, and Carolyn was presented with the Agreement weeks before the marriage and failed to review the document or seek legal advice. In addition, the court found that the financial disclosures were not vague. Finally, the court determined that Carolyn's argument that the provision waiving spousal support was unconscionable lacked evidentiary support.

{¶16} Later, the magistrate conducted a series of hearings to determine property and support and issued an order providing that "the validity of the [Agreement] has been the subject of considerable litigation," and previously had been deemed valid and enforceable. The magistrate awarded each party the real estate purchased after the date of their separation and determined that the Agreement governed George's business property. The magistrate awarded Carolyn and George their bank accounts free and clear of any interest of the other party. The magistrate found that Carolyn was unable to put money toward a retirement fund as she cared for their daughter and awarded her $20,000 for her retirement account. Further, the magistrate ordered George to pay $1,047.01 in monthly child support payments. Carolyn objected and challenged the validity of the Agreement.

{¶17} The domestic relations court adopted the magistrate's decision. Relevant here, the court explained that Carolyn attempted to raise arguments that the domestic relations court had previously addressed and already "found the [Agreement] valid in an Entry on Objections entered July 1, 2021. Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, the Court will not be ruling on these issues again."

II. Law and Analysis

{¶18} Carolyn appeals, raising four assignments of error. First she claims that she did not sign the Agreement and it is therefore unenforceable. Second, she maintains that the Agreement was the product of fraud, duress, coercion, and overreaching. Third, she asserts that the Agreement was unenforceable because it did not contain sufficient financial...