The Ohio Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling in the case of Pollitt v. Pollitt, CA2025-11-090, which addresses the divorce proceedings between Thomas M. Pollitt and Alexia Pollitt. The court's decision impacts how the couple's assets and debts will be divided following their divorce.

The case arose from a divorce filed by Thomas Pollitt in June 2023 after nearly ten years of marriage. The couple had no children, and both were self-employed during their marriage. The dispute centered around the division of their property and debts, particularly concerning the marital residence and various financial obligations.

Throughout their marriage, both parties operated their own businesses. Thomas owned T&T Welding LLC and Quality Crane & Rigging LLC, while Alexia managed a cabinetry business and a USDA-licensed farm and zoo on their property. A significant financial aspect of the case was Alexia's receipt of over $666,000 from a personal injury settlement, which the court classified as her separate property.

The marital residence, purchased in 2018 for $495,000, was titled solely in Alexia's name. Following their separation in June 2023, the court granted her exclusive use of the property and required her to pay the mortgage and utilities. Thomas had not contributed to the mortgage since their separation. The couple filed multiple stipulations regarding their assets, debts, and appraisals, which were crucial during the divorce proceedings.

After a two-day trial in September 2024, the trial court issued a decision on July 1, 2025, ordering the marital residence to be sold and dividing the proceeds. Alexia was awarded a credit for post-separation mortgage payments and a portion of the sale proceeds. However, both parties had debts, including tax liabilities and credit card debts, which the court classified and assigned differently.

In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that the trial court had made errors in its handling of the divorce decree. Specifically, the court ruled that Alexia should have received credit for all post-separation mortgage payments she made, not just a portion. The appellate court stated, "A property division that, without explanation, applies an equitable principle to only part of the period it covers is internally inconsistent." This ruling means that Alexia will receive additional compensation based on the mortgage payments made after the initial hearing.

Additionally, the appellate court found that the trial court had erred in its allocation of certain marital debts. The court noted that the trial court failed to classify and allocate Alexia's debt to Chimney Works for repairs made to the marital residence and her 2020 federal income tax liability. The appellate court emphasized that marital debts incurred during the marriage should be classified and divided equitably.

The court also addressed the valuation of the couple's 2020 Dodge Charger Hellcat. Alexia sold the car for $51,500 but the trial court valued it at $72,000 based on an appraisal. The appellate court upheld the trial court's valuation, stating that the sale price did not reflect the vehicle's true value due to the circumstances of the sale.

Lastly, the appellate court examined the trial court's decision to deny both parties spousal support. The court determined that the trial court had not adequately justified its decision, particularly given the significant income disparity between the parties.

The Ohio Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed some parts of the trial court's decision while reversing others. The case has been remanded for further proceedings to ensure that Alexia receives proper credit for her mortgage payments and that the debts are classified and allocated appropriately.

This ruling is significant as it clarifies how courts should handle property division and debt allocation in divorce cases, particularly when one party has made significant contributions post-separation. The decision also underscores the importance of accurately valuing marital assets and providing a clear basis for financial decisions made during divorce proceedings.

As the case moves forward, the trial court will need to address the issues raised by the appellate court and ensure that both parties' financial responsibilities are equitably resolved.