Granada v. Rojas, 2024-Ohio-1272; 2024
Adriana Granada appealed from the final decree following her divorce from Israel Rojas. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Factual and procedural history.
In November 2020, Rojas filed for divorce after a five-year marriage. The parties tried the matter on Jan. 3, 2022. Both parties presented expert testimony as to the value of the marital business, Just Right Environmental LLC. “Granada’s expert, Terri Lastovka (Lastovka), testified that the fair market value of Just Right was $840,000. Rojas’s expert, C. Clay Miller (‘Miller’) opined that the fair market value of Just Right was in the neighborhood of $290,000.”
The trial court accepted the decision of the magistrate and issued a final decree on April 6, 2023. Rojas timely appealed and asserted four assignments of error including:
- “The trial court abused its discretion in dividing marital property when it adopted the appellee’s expert report and ‘[expressly] rejected’ the more advanced, [thorough] and competent expert report of Terry [Lastovka], a seasoned expert and court witness”;
- There was an error in not addressing $350,000 of marital funds the appellee took;
- The court erred in not awarding appellant spousal support; and
- The court erred in not addressing potential tax liabilities for underreporting of income by the husband.
Valuation of Just Right.
A trial court has broad discretion in admitting expert testimony, and it will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion. (Brown v. Brown and Chattree v Chattree) Granada raised this objection to the trial court, which overruled it.
Both experts used the capitalized earnings method and the market data method, and both took a DLOM. “After hearing the testimony and reviewing the records, the Magistrate determined that [Rojas’] expert provided a more accurate valuation, and expressly rejected the valuation of [Granada’s] expert.” The experts came to significantly different conclusions of value. After reviewing all of the evidence, Rojas’ expert’s valuation was more reasonable and credible. The trial court overruled Granada’s first objection.
Granada pointed out to the appellate court a number of what she considered deficiencies in Miller’s valuation and also attacked the credibility and qualifications of Miller as compared to Lastovka. The appellate court noted that all of this information was available to the magistrate and trial court. “Both experts revealed exactly what information was made available to them by the parties and whether it was considered in their reports and valuation calculations, therefore demonstrating the confines of each of their reports.” The trial court reviewed all of the issues that Granada raised. As the trial court noted, this was relatively new with limited records and few employees. Knowing all of this, the trial court was entitled to accept Miller’s opinion over Lastovka’s. “We therefore conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. Granada’s first assignment of error is overruled.”
Withdrawals from business account.
Granada argued that the trial court failed to address the alleged $350,000 of cash that Rojas withdrew from Just Right at the beginning of the divorce proceedings. Granada was appealing only the valuation of Just Right in this matter. As to the valuation of Just Right, this issue was similar to the first assignment of error. The trial court had arguments on this issue before it and ultimately decided to accept Miller’s valuation of the company over Lastovka’s. Further, the trial court concluded that “any distributions from [Rojas’] business taken by [Rojas] during the marriage was income to [Rojas] and not subject to division under R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a).”
Granada’s second assignment of error was overruled.
Spousal support.
Per the trial court, this was a short-term marriage with no children, and thus no support was appropriate. The appellate court reviewed the record on this and found that both of the magistrates and the trial court made explicit findings. It was not an abuse of discretion to deny spousal support. The third assignment of error was overruled
Tax liability and responsibility.
Granada argued that the trial court erred in not considering the tax liability for Just Right. Rojas orally conceded that “[he] agrees to save and hold [Granada] harmless from any liabilities associated with his tax returns, including the returns of Just Right Environmental, LLC.” Since the trial court handled this, there was no need for further consideration and this assignment of error was also overruled.
Conclusion.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.