Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Middendorf v. Middendorf | 696 N.E.2d 575 (1998)
In a divorce proceeding, the two broad classes of property are marital property, sometimes called community property, and separate property. Courts typically divide marital property between the spouses. Separate property usually remains with whichever spouse owned it at the time of marriage or acquired it during the marriage. Normally, property that either spouse owns at marriage remains that spouse’s separate property. With exceptions, property acquired during the marriage is marital property. But what if separate property increases in value during the marriage? Is that appreciation marital property? That issue drove the Supreme Court of Ohio hog wild in the nineteen ninety-eight case of Middendorf versus Middendorf.
Max and Patricia Middendorf got married in December of nineteen eighty-six. Max had three children from a prior marriage. At the time, Max was a co-owner and livestock buyer for Middendorf Stockyard Company, or M S C, whose business was buying and selling hogs.
Throughout the marriage, Max worked full time for M S C, where he made many crucial business decisions that helped drive the company to growth. Patricia became a homemaker after the marriage, but she did contribute to M S C sometimes. For instance, she took business calls for Max and redecorated M S C’s offices.
Unfortunately, things didn’t work out. Max and Patricia separated in March of nineteen ninety-two. On April sixth, divorce proceedings commenced. In December of nineteen ninety-two, a court-appointed referee held a hearing to divide the marital property. The referee found that Max’s interest in M S C was his separate property. However, if M S C’s stockyard appreciated during the marriage, that appreciation was marital property. Yet due to insufficient evidence, the referee never determined the stockyard’s value during the marriage. The Court of Common Pleas of Shelby County, Ohio, adopted the referee’s report and granted a divorce.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, which remanded the case for findings on, among other things, the stockyard’s value during the marriage.
On remand, the trial court found that, during the marriage, Max’s interest in the stockyard had increased in value by one hundred eight thousand five hundred forty-one dollars, which was marital property. Having so found, the court awarded Patricia fifty-four thousand two hundred seventy dollars and fifty cents, one-half the increase in value. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio took the case on discretionary appeal.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/middend...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/middend...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Информация по комментариям в разработке