 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gupta v. Gupta7/28/2000
The appellant, Dr. Narenda Gupta ("appellant"), appeals the decision of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the parties a divorce and set forth a property settlement. The appellant contends the trial court's findings were an abuse of discretion. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
The pertinent facts and procedural history in this matter are as follows. The appellant and Meena Gupta ("appellee") were married on December 7, 1977 in Partna, India . Two children were born as issue of this marriage. After the parties married, the appellant completed medical school and moved to England to complete his residency program. In 1983, the Guptas moved to Edmonton, Canada and resided there for ten years. In 1993, the Guptas moved to Lima, Ohio where the appellant joined a local medical practice. The appellee has a Bachelor's of Arts in psychology, but she has never worked during the course of the marriage.
On April 7 and 8, 1999, a trial was held in this matter. The parties presented a written stipulation governing the children's assets and a limited amount of the marital assets to the trial court. The stipulation was incorporated into the trial decision issued by the court on November 17, 1999. On December 9, 1999, the court filed a supplement to the decision in order to provide clarity regarding the temporary orders and the orders contained in the decision. On December 29, 1999, the trial court filed a judgment entry of divorce. It is from the judgment that the appellant now appeals, asserting four assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. 1
The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by finding that Dr. Gupta engaged in dissipation of marital assets.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that he had committed financial misconduct. Specifically, he argues that his actions did not constitute an intentional deprivation of marital assets. For the following reasons, we agree.
When making a property award in a divorce action, a trial court has broad discretion. Berish v. Berish (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 319. Thus, a trial court's determination in such cases will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. Huener v. Huener (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 322, Martin v. Martin (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 292, 294. When reviewing such discretion, an appellate court must ascertain whether the disposition, as a whole, was an abuse of discretion. Briganti v. Briganti (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 220, 222. An abuse of discretion "implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217. 219.
In the Fall of 1996, the appellant was accused of sexual harassment by two female nurses. As a result of these allegations, a peer review was held which resulted in the appellant losing his privilege to practice medicine at both St. Rita's Hospital and Lima Memorial Hospital. This process required the appellant to obtain legal counsel and participate in a treatment program. The total cost of these expenditures was $62,279.00. The appellee contends that the inappropriate behavior of the appellant constituted financial misconduct and therefore, she is entitled to a distributive award. The trial court agreed with the appellee and awarded her $62,279.00.
The Ohio Revised Code permits the court to consider several factors when dividing marital assets. R.C. 3105.171(C)(1) mandates that a trial court make an equal distribution of marital property unless the division would be inequitable. In such an instance, the court must make an equitable division. Huener, 110 Ohio A
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|