COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71130 KALYANI MUKHOPADHYAY : : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY v. : AND : OPINION PARTHA SARATHI MOOKERJEE : : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 16, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Domestic Relations Division Of the Common Pleas Court, Case No. D-239943 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: RANDALL M. PERLA, ESQ. NEAL P. LAVELLE, ESQ. 19443 Lorain Road 522 Leader Building Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 2 KARPINSKI, J.: Defendant-appellant Partha Mookerjee, M.D., appeals from an order of the domestic relations court granting him a divorce from plaintiff-appellee, Kalyani Mukhopadhyay, and dividing their marital property. The parties were married in India in 1983 and had two children during their marriage. The plaintiff wife, represented by counsel, filed this action for divorce and other relief in the domestic relations court on April 18, 1995. The defendant husband represented himself pro se during the trial court proceedings. The matter proceeded to trial approximately one year thereafter in May, 1996. The domestic relations court granted the parties a divorce, awarded primary parental rights of the two children to plaintiff, ordered defendant to pay child support and alimony, and divided their property in an eight-page typewritten order journalized July 18, 1996. Represented by newly retained appellate counsel, defendant, appealing from the division of assets, raises the following four assignments of error: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS ATTEMPTED EQUAL DIVISION OF THE PARTIES' FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS IN THAT IT DOUBLE COUNTED WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS TO FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS RESULTING IN AN UNEQUAL DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FAILURE TO ACCOUNT IN ITS DIVISION OF ASSETS THE OHIO SAVINGS BANK WITHDRAWAL BY PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE OF $1,027.00 AT THE TIME OF THE PARTIES' SEPARATION. III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO MAKE A FINDING OF THE MARITAL AND NON-MARITAL NATURE OF THE PARTIES' 3 HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS, TWO AUTOMOBILES, AND PERSONAL PROPERTY INCLUDING GOLD JEWELRY AND FURTHER ERRED IN FAILING TO AWARD SAME TO ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER. IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TAX CONSIDERATIONS IN THE AWARD OF ASSETS. Defendant's first, second, and fourth assignments of error relate to the award of financial assets, whereas his third assignment concerns the division of various items of personal property. For simplicity, we shall address his arguments in this order. Defendant's first assignment argues that the trial court double counted accounts at various financial institutions because he established two new accounts with proceeds from another account. Contrary to defendant's argument, however, the record does not unambiguously establish defendant's contention that the Bank One and Metro Health Employees' Credit Union Accounts awarded to him were funded by the proceeds of the account he closed at Republic Savings. (Tr. 30-47.) Defendant's testimony does not clearly indicate the dates of the transfer, and there is no documentation in the record to support his claim. The record contains complete bank records concerning the Republic account, but there are no such records for the other two accounts. Joint Exhibit 2 does not provide the missing link because it does not reflect the date of the deposits made to the Bank One and Metro Health Employees' Credit Union Accounts. In short, the parties had numerous financial accounts and tracing the source and uses of the account balances is impossible 4 because not all of the relevant financial records were submitted into evidence at trial. Defendant's reliance on Thomas v. Thomas (Mar. 31, 1995), Greene App. No. 94-CA-18, unreported at 11-12, is misplaced for this reason. Under the circumstances, evaluating the evidence and the credibility of the testimony was for the trial court and defendant has shown no error. Defendant's second assignment complains that the trial court did not deduct from the total award to his former wife the amount of a $1,027 withdrawal she made the day of their separation. Plaintiff testified she made the withdrawal from a joint account, after defendant had withdrawn funds from their other accounts, to pay tuition for her nursing education and living expenses for the two children. (Tr. 182-183.) Although defendant correctly notes that the trial court's opinion does not specifically address this particular withdrawal, the court's failure to deduct for this withdrawal is similar to a $2,000 withdrawal defendant made to pay for a medical board certification expense prior to the decree. In each case, the record supports the finding that the funds were used to pay necessary expenses. Prior to granting a divorce and making a final division of assets, the trial court is not required to scrutinize each and every expenditure made by the parties throughout the marriage. The size of defendant's withdrawal, which was not deducted from his final award, was approximately twice the size of the challenged withdrawal by the plaintiff used for family living 5 expenses during the proceedings. Under the circumstances, defendant has failed to show reversible error. Defendant's fourth assignment complains that the trial court did not consider adverse tax effects of awarding him an Individual Retirement Account ( IRA ). Defendant complains that the trial court ignored that he would have to pay federal and state income taxes on the IRA awarded to him if he decided to withdraw the funds. However, the record shows that defendant presented absolutely no evidence concerning any potential adverse tax consequences. Moreover, there is no evidence that such consequences would in fact arise at any time in this case. According to defendant's argument, such an adverse tax consequence would arise only if he voluntarily closed the IRA prematurely. He presented no evidence that he had either closed the IRA or even planned to do so in the future. Finally, even if there were any basis to consider adverse tax consequences as defendant argues, he presented no evidence concerning the applicable tax rates. Accordingly, the trial court committed no error by failing to give him credit for any taxation which is only potential and indefinite. Defendant's third assignment argues that the trial court did not determine whether various items of personal property constituted marital or non-marital property and did not value or award the items to either party. The record shows that neither party focused any attention or presented any valuation evidence concerning these items during trial. 6 We agree that the better practice would be for the trial judge to expressly designate the recipient of each disputed item of personal property. R.C. 3105.171. However, the record indicates that the trial court ordered roughly equal distribution of this personal property. It is clear by implication in this case that each party was to retain his or her own car and the wife was to retain whatever gifts were given to her during the marriage. Similarly, each was to retain the household items they had been using during the one-year period they were separated. The trial judge expressly found that the husband purchased household furnishings for $10,500 at his separate residence. He was to retain those furnishings, therefore, and the wife was to keep the rest. Under the circumstances, defendant has failed to show any reversible error. Accordingly, defendant's four assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. 7 It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her 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 Division of the Common Pleas 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. BLACKMON, P.J., and PATTON, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .