[Cite as Fogt v. Fogt, 2019-Ohio-1403.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT DEFIANCE COUNTY SARA FOGT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 4-18-10 v. JEFFREY C. FOGT, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. Appeal from Defiance County Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Division Trial Court No. 13-DR-42551 Judgment Affirmed Date of Decision: April 15, 2019 APPEARANCES: Charles E. Bloom for Appellant John S. Shaffer for Appellee Case No. 4-18-10 PRESTON, J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Sara Fogt (“Sara”), appeals the October 26, 2018 judgment of the Defiance County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. {¶2} Sara and defendant-appellee, Jeffrey Fogt (“Jeffrey”), were married on October 31, 1998. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 32). Nearly 15 years later, on September 12, 2013, Sara filed a complaint in the trial court requesting a divorce from Jeffrey. (Doc. No. 1). Jeffrey filed his answer to Sara’s complaint on January 29, 2016. (Doc. No. 32). {¶3} The final hearing in the matter commenced before the magistrate on January 8, 2016. (See Doc. Nos. 43, 44). Additional hearings were conducted before the magistrate on February 19, April 29, July 8, and September 23, 2016. (See Doc. Nos. 43, 44). On November 23, 2016, Sara filed written closing arguments. (Doc. No. 43). That same day, Jeffrey filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Doc. No. 44). On December 9, 2016, Sara filed her response to Jeffrey’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Doc. No. 45). That same day, Jeffrey filed his response to Sara’s written closing arguments. (Doc. No. 46). {¶4} On April 10, 2017, the magistrate issued his decision recommending that a divorce be granted. (Doc. No. 54). Relevant to this appeal, the magistrate -2- Case No. 4-18-10 also recommended that the trial court make the following orders with respect to contested assets and debts: that a bank account, First Federal #8283, valued at $80,531 be divided equally between Sara and Jeffrey and that Jeffrey assume sole responsibility for the payment of interest and principal on a $90,000 loan the parties received from Jeffrey’s parents in July 2000. (Id.). In addition, the magistrate recommended that the trial court order Jeffrey to pay Sara spousal support in the sum of $4,400 per month for 66 months. (Id.). {¶5} On April 24, 2017, Jeffrey filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. (Doc. No. 55). First, Jeffrey objected to the magistrate’s recommended division of First Federal #8283. (Id.). He argued that the value of First Federal #8283 should be reduced by $16,249.73 prior to division to account for two payments he made from the account in January 2016: $12,000 toward estimated 2015 federal income tax liability and $4,249.73 toward real estate taxes for calendar year 2015 payable in calendar year 2016. (Id.). In addition, Jeffrey argued that although the magistrate found that the $90,000 loan was essentially a marital debt, the magistrate failed to assign responsibility for the debt equally between himself and Sara. (Id.). Thus, Jeffrey argued that he should receive credit ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals