Miller v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, Delaware County · 2025 · Corporations

2025 Ohio 1923 (2025)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationsmarital vs. separate propertyexpert disclosure sanctionscontinuancesattorney's feesspousal supportCiv.R. 53motion to set aside magistrate order

Facts

In the divorce proceedings, the magistrate's case-management orders and local rules required expert reports to be exchanged at least 30 days before trial, but Husband did not provide his expert report until after Wife filed a motion in limine less than 30 days before trial. Husband sought a 90-120 day continuance, which the magistrate denied, and the trial judge denied Husband's motion to set aside those pretrial orders. At trial, Husband claimed separate-property interests in the marital residence, Bean-Oller real estate, brokerage accounts, a Fidelity 401(k), and restricted stock units, but much of his documentary evidence was excluded for failure to timely produce it in discovery. The trial court found Husband failed to adequately trace the claimed assets to separate property, awarded Wife attorney's fees, and ultimately entered a decree providing that neither party would receive spousal support in light of a later order terminating temporary support.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding Husband's expert and denying a continuance, by treating the disputed assets as marital rather than separate property, by awarding Wife attorney's fees, by treating Husband's spousal-support objections as moot, and by classifying restricted stock units as marital property? Also, were Husband's appellate challenges preserved despite his failure to repeat the pretrial issues in post-trial objections and despite disputes about proffer?

Rule

A party preserves review of a magistrate's pretrial order by timely filing a motion to set aside under Civ.R. 53; when the trial judge rules on that pretrial issue before trial and the magistrate makes no later findings on it, the party need not repeat the issue in post-trial objections. Trial courts have broad discretion over discovery and continuances, and may exclude expert evidence as a sanction for violating disclosure deadlines and deny continuances where the requesting party caused the problem and failed to show good cause. Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, and the spouse claiming separate property must prove by a preponderance of the evidence and clearly trace the asset to separate property; the factfinder may reject unsupported self-serving testimony. Attorney's fees in divorce may be awarded when equitable under R.C. 3105.73(A), and failure to present evidence of tax consequences defeats an appellate challenge based on tax effects.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a divorce action in Columbus, a magistrate granted Nora Bennett's pretrial motion to exclude Evan Bennett's valuation expert for missing a court-ordered disclosure deadline and also denied Evan's continuance request. Evan filed a timely motion to set aside those pretrial orders, and the trial judge denied it before trial. After trial, the magistrate's final decision did not revisit the expert or continuance issues, and Evan's post-trial objections omitted them.

On appeal, is Evan's challenge to the exclusion and continuance rulings preserved?

Explanation. A party preserves appellate review of a magistrate's pretrial order by timely filing a motion to set aside. When the trial judge rules on that pretrial issue before trial and the magistrate makes no additional findings or conclusions on it in the later decision, the party need not repeat the same issue in post-trial objections. Requiring repetition would amount to an unnecessary reconsideration request.