COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59019 VERA J. MEDOVIC : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : NICK MEDOVIC : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLEE : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Domestic Relations Court, No. D-180018. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: David L. Lash, Esq. Potash & Podor Co. 23811 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 245 Beachwood, OH 44122 For Defendant-Appellee: Alice Rickel, Esq. 3690 Orange Place Suite 330 Beachwood, OH 44122 -2- MATIA, P.J.: This cause arises out of a judgment rendered by the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. By judgment entry the court granted appellant and appellee a divorce; determined that 31000 Miles Road, Solon, Ohio, residence of the parties, was not a marital asset and neither plaintiff nor defendant had any interest therein; and the court ordered the parties to quit-claim their interests thereto to the estate of Mrs. Eva Medvidovic, the mother of the appellee. It is from this judgment, plaintiff- appellant assigns two errors on appeal. This court finds no error and affirms the judgment of the trial court. THE FACTS, GENERALLY, PRIOR TO JUDGMENT Appellant Vera Medovic (wife) and appellee Nick Medovic (husband) were married on October 19, 1979 and divorced on November 28, 1989. On September 2, 1979, more than a month prior to the marriage, appellee husband's mother, Eva Medvidovic (a.k.a. Medovic), signed a purchase agreement in the amount of $124,900.00 for the purchase of a home located in Solon, Ohio at 31000 Miles Road. The terms of the sale were $124,900.00 cash, and Eva Medvidovic made the total payment therefore. By deed dated November 30, 1979, the title to the house transferred to Eva Medvidovic, Nick Medovic (appellee) and Vera Medovic (appellant). -3- Appellant wife and appellee husband moved into the home on December 15 1979. In April, 1980, Eva Medvidovic moved into the home. For the next seven years Mrs. Medvidovic, appellant and appellee lived together in the Solon home. Appellant and appellee separated in 1987. THE CASE Appellant wife filed for divorce on July 24, 1987. The appellee answered and filed a counterclaim. The parties were granted a divorce on November 28, 1989. During the divorce proceedings, the appellee and the appellant gave contradictory evidence regarding the intent of Mrs. Eva Medvidovic regarding the names on the deed. The appellee testified that the deed was supposed to be titled to Eva Medvidovic and to Nick Medovic. The appellee further testified that the appellant later added her name to the deed. On the other hand, the appellant wife testified that it was agreed by all the parties that her name was to appear on the deed. The appellant subsequently filed a motion to join the appellee husband's mother, Eva Medvidovic, as a third-party defendant. Appellant further filed a motion to restrain appellee husband and mother from disposing of the marital home prior to the court's resolution. Both motions were granted on November 1, 1988. Appellee and Mrs. Medvidovic filed a separate complaint in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against the appellant on January 18, 1989. In their complaint, appellee and Mrs. -4- Medvidovic alleged a title dispute concerning the marital home which was the subject of the divorce action pending in the Domestic Relations Court. The appellant filed her answer and motion to consolidate on March 28, 1989, on the ground that there was a pending matter with the same parties and subject matter in another court. Action on that case was stayed pending resolution of the divorce case, and subsequently dismissed. The divorce case went to trial on July 7, 1989. By judgment entry dated November 28, 1989, the Domestic Relations Court granted appellant and appellee a divorce and granted the marital home to the estate of Mrs. Medvidovic. (Eva Medvidovic died during the divorce proceedings.) It is from this judgment entry, appellant wife timely appeals. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Assignment of Error I and II are interrelated issues and will be discussed concurrently. "I.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT NEITHER APPELLANT NOR APPELLEE HAD AN INTEREST IN THE MARITAL HOME WHERE THE DEED GRANTED LEGAL TITLE TO APPELLANT, APPELLEE AND A THIRD PARTY AS TENANTS- IN-COMMON. "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT NEITHER APPELLANT NOR APPELLEE HAD AN INTEREST IN THE MARITAL HOME WHERE THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PARTY WHO PROVIDED FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE INTENDED FOR TITLE TO VEST IN HERSELF, APPELLANT, AND APPELLEE." -5- Appellant argues in her assignments of error that the trial court erred in finding that the marital home was not a marital asset and rather property of the estate of Mrs. Medvidovic. Specifically, appellant argues that the title to the home vested in herself, Mrs. Medvidovic, and appellee as tenants in common. These assignments of error are not well taken. Upon appellate review of the division of marital assets this court must rely on the findings of fact as set out by the trial court in determining whether the final result was reasonably equitable under the circumstances of the case. Buckles v. Buckles (1988), 46 Ohio App. 3d 102. The appellate court will not disturb the trial court's decision absent demonstration of an abuse of discretion. "The term, 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment, it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable...." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217. In the case sub judice, competent credible evidence in the record supports the court's judgment that the marital home located at 31000 Miles Road, Solon, Ohio, was not a marital asset. The court's judgment entry of divorce reads: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the real property located at 31000 Miles Road, Solon, Ohio, ***, is not a marital asset and neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have any interest therein. Plaintiff and Defendant shall deliver title to such real property by quitclaim deed to the Estate of Eva Medovic. In the event either party fails to deliver such quitclaim -6- deed within seven (7) days of the date of this Judgment Entry of Divorce, this Entry shall act as a conveyance of such party's interest. R.C. 3105.011 expressly provides that the court of common pleas has "full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters" (emphasis added). R.C. 3105.18 further provides that the court "may allow alimony it considers reasonable to either party ***" taking into consideration "all relevant factors, ***." R.C. 3105.18 uses the word "alimony" to include a division of marital property. The statute indicates that marital property includes only such property as was produced or earned by the partnership. Therefore, marital property is presumed to include all property owned by either or both parties at the time of divorce, regardless of title. Herein, the trial court determined that neither the home nor a portion thereof was a marital asset of the appellee nor the appellant, but rather was owned by the mother-in-law, Mrs. Medvidovic. We affirm the court's determination. Herein, the record indicates that Mrs. Medvidovic entered into the agreement to purchase the home one month before appellee husband and appellant wife were married. She alone signed the purchase agreement. The record further indicates that the deed to the home was issued one month after the marriage and was titled in all three names. -7- Appellant wife argues that because her name is on the deed with that of appellant husband and Mrs. Medvidovic that the court erred by holding that the property was exclusively Mrs. Medvidovic's. Notwithstanding appellee's and appellant's names being on the deed and other relevant papers, the evidence strongly supports the fact that Mrs. Medvidovic provided all the monies for the purchase price of the home and entered the transaction one month prior to appellee's and appellant's marriage. Therefore, the names on the deed were not the dispositive issue herein. The issue before the Domestic Relations Court was whether or not the marital home could be considered a marital asset. The court did not journalize its reasons for determining that the property was not a marital asset, but we will presume the factors in R.C. 3105.18 were properly considered. Russell v. Russell (1984), 14 Ohio App. 3d 408. The record strongly indicates, however, that the property was not produced nor earned by the marital partnership, and consequently, was not a marital asset. The record does not support the contention that Mrs. Medvidovic intended to make a gift of the home to appellant wife and appellee husband. The record indicates that Mrs. Medvidovic intended to live with appellant and appellee. According to appellee husband's testimony, appellee and Mrs. Medvidovic had an oral agreement as to the payments for utilities, taxes and maintenance of the home. Further, appellee husband's testimony that his mother had included his name on the deed for probate and -8- survivorship purposes appears to be a reasonable statement, and comports with other evidence in the record./1\ Whether or not appellant wife added her name without Mrs. Medvidovic's and appellee husband's consent and knowledge is not a question before this court. Therefore, we do not have to resolve that issue. However, we reason that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the Solon home to be a possible asset of the estate of Mrs. Medvidovic, notwithstanding the fact that all three names were on the deed. The court's finding that the residence was the asset of Mrs. Medvidovic's estate was supported by competent, credible evidence that she provided all the monies for the purchase of the home and that she intended to live there with appellee husband and appellant wife. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's resolution that the home was not a marital asset. Accordingly, the home is now properly under the jurisdiction of the Probate Court as a subject of Mrs. Medvidovic's estate. That court will further administer the estate and the proceeds therefrom. Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed. /1\ Bank accounts carrying both names of Eva Medvidovic and or Nick Medovic. -9- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Domestic Relations Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. SPELLACY, J. and BLACKMON, J., CONCUR. DAVID T. MATIA PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .