COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73670 GLORIA J. STRONG : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION JAMES E. STRONG : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 25, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: DOMESTIC APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. D-242267 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: DWIGHT E. DAVIS (#0029972) 1370 Ontario Street 1328 Standard Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: ROBERT J. SAWYER (#0022440) 300 The Superior Building 815 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2746 SPELLACY, J.: Defendant-appellant JamesE. Strong ( appellant ) appeals from the trial court's entry of the divorce decree of appellant and plaintiff-appellee Gloria J. Strong. -2- Appellant assigns the following sole error for review: I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT- APPELLANT IN FAILING TO RENDER WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AS THE BASES (SIC) FOR MARITAL PROPERTY DIVISION PURSUANT TO REVISED CODE 3105.17.1(G). Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. Appellant and Gloria Strong were married on May 9, 1964. Three children were born as issue of the marriage, two of whom are now emancipated. Katina, born September 2, 1982, is a minor. Gloria Strong filed for divorce on August 15, 1995. During the pendency of the marriage, appellant and Gloria acquired interests in different pieces of real property. They were joint owners of the marital residence and a three-suite family dwelling on Browning Avenue used as rental property. Gloria Strong had an interest in two additional real properties located on Broadway Avenue and Dolloff Road in Cleveland. Those properties were owned by GPI Distributors Incorporated in which Gloria Strong held a fifty-one (51) percent interest. The parties agreed that the county tax appraisal figure would be used to place a value on the real estate. In 1987, Gloria Strong founded the Academy Day Care Center which operated at the properties owned by GPI Distributors Incorporated.The court appointed Amos Mahsua, a certified public accountant, and to conduct an independent appraisal of the Academy Day Care Center. Mahsua testified that the value of the Academy -3- Day Care Center was ninety-seven thousand two hundred thirty-one dollars ($97,231.00). The trial court granted the parties a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility. Custody of Katina was given to Gloria Strong. Appellant was awarded his pension with the Chrysler Corporation Retirement Program valued at one hundred fifty-seven thousand three hundred eighty-one dollars and eighty cents ($157,381.80) and the Browning Road Property, valued at sixty-five thousand thirty dollars ($65,030.00). Gloria Strong was awarded the marital residence valued at thirty-eight thousand dollars ($38,000.00), the Broadway property valued at thirty thousand six hundred sixty-one dollars ($30,661.00), the Dolloff property valued at fifty-three thousand twenty-eight dollars ($53,028.00), the Academy Day Care Center, and the furniture and personal property located at the marital residence. The trial court appended a portion of the transcript in which the trial court stated that the value of the real estate and business awarded to Gloria Strong totaled two hundred nineteen thousand four hundred fifty-three dollars ($219,453.00) while the Browning property and pension awarded to appellant was worth two hundred twenty-two thousand four hundred eleven dollars ($222,411.00). The trial court gave Gloria Strong the furniture in the marital residence to equalize the award. Appellant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled by the trial court. Appellant has appealed from the divorce decree. II. In his assignment of error, appellant disputes the division of -4- property and award made by the trial court. Appellant contends that the findings of fact by the trial court are inadequate under R.C. 3105.171(G), requiring reversal by this court. R.C. 3105.171(G) provides: In any order for the division or disbursement of property or a distributive award made pursuant to this section, the court shall make written findings of fact that support the determination that the marital property has been equitably divided and shall specify the dates it used in determining the meaning of during the marriage. In Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93, the court held at paragraph two of the syllabus: In allocating property between the parties to a divorce and in making an award of sustenance alimony, the trial court must indicate the basis for its award in sufficient detail to enable a reviewing court to determine that the award is fair, equitable and in accordance with the law. A trial court is required to determine the value of marital property and make written findings of fact as to the value of the property. Allen v. Allen (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 640. However, failure to make findings of fact is not error if the record demonstrates the trial court's basis for the property division. Consorte v. Consorte (April 23, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 71841, unreported. The parties stipulated as to the value of the four pieces of real property which were part of the marital estate. Appellant's primary dispute is with the valuation given to the Academy Day Care Center. Appellant argues that the worth placed upon the business by the expert witness and adopted by the trial court was not based -5- on facts. The trial court is vested with broad discretion upon the facts and circumstances of each case to determine the value of marital assets and to fashion an equitable division of property. James v. James (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 668, 681. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment. It implies that the trial court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217. A trial court abuses its discretion if it did not have sufficient evidence before it to support the value it applies. McCoy v. McCoy (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 570, 578. The trial court should first determine the value of marital assets before equitably dividing the marital property. Eisler v. Eisler (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 151. In valuing a marital asset, a trial court is neither required to use a particular valuation method nor precluded from using any method. James, supra at 681. A trial court may rely in whole or in part on an expert's opinion when setting a value upon marital property. Balog v. Balog (June 9, 1997), Warren App. Nos. CA96-08-077, CA96-08-081, CA96-09-086, unreported. There are no rigid rules used by courts to determine value as equity depends on the totality of the circumstances. Baker v. Baker (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 700. The parties agreed that the Academy Day Care Center would be evaluated by Mahsua. The record reflects that Mahsua valued the business at ninety-seven thousand two hundred thirty-one dollars ($97,231.00). This was the only valuation placed in evidence. -6- Appellant pointed out to the trial court the documents he claimed were not provided to Mahsua by Gloria Strong as well as other problems appellant claimed existed with the expert's valuation. Any objection to the methodology employed and the results obtained by Mahsua go to the weight and credibility of the evidence. When reviewing the weight and credibility of the evidence, an appellate court must determine whether the judgment is supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case. Shear v. West American Ins. Co. (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 162, 164. The only evidence before the trial court regarding the value of the Academy Day Care Center was that provided by the expert witness appointed by the trial court and agreed to by both parties. A review of the record demonstrates that the valuation of the Academy Day Care Center by Mahsua was supported by competent, credible evidence. Although the trial court did not specifically state that it adopted the value placed upon the Academy Day Care Center by Mahsua, the trial court's valuation of the marital residence and two commercial properties in addition to the Academy Day Care Center adds up to the value of the property award granted to Gloria Strong found in the record. This court is permitted to consider the evidence found in the record when evaluating the trial court's basis for a marital property valuation. There is evidence in the record supporting the trial court's division of marital property. Also, the trial court appended a portion of the trial transcript to its journal entry. The journal entry and the partial transcript -7- constitute sufficient findings of fact to permit adequate review by this court under R.C. 3105.171(G). Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -8- 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 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. JAMES M. PORTER, P.J. and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This 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(B) 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 .