USA – OHIO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Andrew A Zashin, Amy M Keating, Kyleigh A Weinfurtner and Christopher R Reynolds, Zashin Law
and resolve disputes within the scope of their authority timely. In addition to dispute resolution ADR options, Ohio also continues to see an uptick in ADR negotiating models. ADR negotiation models can include the following: • mediation; • evaluative mediation; • facilitation; and • parenting coaches. ADR negotiating models provide an out-of-court venue for the parties to negotiate a resolution, often with the assistance of a third-party neutral facilitating the conversation using an interest- based approach. Ohio primarily has two more formal ADR pro - cesses available as well, the Collaborative Divorce process and the Cooperative Divorce Process (a two-phase process that combines a negotiation model with a dispute resolution mechanism(s)). ADR mechanisms continue to enjoy popularity in Ohio. Courts are increasingly encouraging liti - gants to participate in these processes – and, in some instances, ordering participation. Ohio is also increasing its exploration of early neutral evaluation as a court-ordered process in addi - tion to private options. This ADR trend looks to continue in 2025 and beyond. Security for Property Division Payments Over Time In Oakes v Oakes & Leadwise, Inc., an Ohio appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to provide security for a husband’s USD28 million property division payment to his wife to be paid over seven years.
Ohio law provides that a trial court has discretion whether to order security for a payment obliga - tion arising from a marital property division. The appellate court found that there was no sound reasoning why the trial court rejected the wife’s requests for some sort of security, including, potentially, a promissory note, security agree - ment, liens, guarantees, stock-transfer restric - tions or immediate payment if the husband sold stock in the business. The appellate court determined that, because of the size of the award, the seven-year duration of the payment obligation, and the husband’s control over the business, the trial court was obligated to order some form of security for the debt. However, the appellate court left the nature of the security up to the trial court on remand. Oakes highlights the challenge inherent in cas - es where a privately held business entity is a significant portion of the marital estate: what security can and should be implemented for a long-term property division payment structure for the spouse who does not retain the business interest? While Ohio law still encourages par - ties to reach agreements to ensure appropriate security mechanisms, Oakes provides guidance for Ohio courts that security is required in cases where large awards are paid over a significant period, especially when the retaining spouse has control over the business interest. In Berger v Berger, another appellate court in 2015 was confronted with a similar issue, albeit for a smaller lump sum property division pay - ment. In Berger, a different appellate court determined that a stock pledge was not suffi - cient security for the husband’s USD1.9 million property division payment over a 12-year term when the business already had significant debt. However, the Berger court did not provide more
461 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook