The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District has affirmed a trial court’s decision in a protracted divorce case, ruling that interest should only be applied to the final, net equalization payment between the former spouses, rather than on the ex-husband’s entire share of a significant marital asset received earlier.
The ruling, issued in the case of *Jones v. Jones*, resolves the latest dispute between Diana Lynn Jones (Appellee) and Jeffrey T. Jones (Appellant) concerning how interest should be calculated following the division of a $403,000 civil lawsuit settlement Diana received during the marriage.
A Long Road Through Divorce Court
The divorce between Jeffrey and Diana Jones, which began in 2016, has been an unusually complex and frequently litigated matter, marking their fifth appearance before this appellate court.
The core of the current appeal centered on a previous ruling from 2022 (*Jones III*). In that prior decision, the appellate court instructed the Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court to re-examine the interest owed to Jeffrey on his half of the marital settlement proceeds ($201,500, based on a $403,000 valuation). The appellate court had suggested that Jeffrey was entitled to any investment earnings accrued on that $201,500 portion after the agreed-upon valuation date of November 14, 2017, or, failing that, statutory interest starting from that date.
Following that remand, the magistrate held a hearing and reached a different conclusion than what Jeffrey had hoped for. The magistrate determined that interest should only be calculated on the final net equalization payment: $1,770.46, which was the amount Diana owed Jeffrey after balancing out all other assets. This net difference was ordered paid within 90 days of a March 2022 decree.
Jeffrey objected, arguing that he was entitled to interest on the full $201,500 portion of the settlement because he had not had use of those funds since the valuation date. The trial court ultimately adopted the magistrate’s finding, leading to this current appeal.
The Statutory Hurdle: When Does Money Become “Due and Payable”?
The central legal question addressed by the appellate court was whether Jeffrey was entitled to statutory interest on the gross share of the settlement proceeds ($201,500) or only on the final net balance ($1,770.46).
The court relied heavily on Ohio Revised Code Section 1343.03(A), which dictates that a creditor is only entitled to statutory interest when the money becomes “due and payable” under a judgment or decree.
Judge Michael L. Tucker, writing for the panel, explained that while Jeffrey had not had use of his portion of the settlement funds, the situation was complicated by the fact that Jeffrey also owed Diana a substantial sum—$256,567.08—representing her share of marital properties remaining in his control.
The magistrate correctly noted that it would be “unjust and inequitable” to order interest on only one side of the property division equation. Since both parties held assets the other was entitled to, applying interest only to the $201,500 settlement share without considering the $256,567.08 Jeffrey owed Diana would be unfair.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the magistrate and the trial court. They concluded that the $1,770.46 represented the only amount that was definitively “due and payable” to Jeffrey as a clear money judgment from Diana following the equalization of assets.
Rejecting the “Law of the Case” Argument
Jeffrey also argued that the appellate court’s prior instruction in *Jones III* (which suggested interest should be calculated from the valuation date on the $201,500) established the “law of the case” and bound both the trial court and the appellate court on that issue.
The “law of the case” doctrine generally prevents relitigating issues already decided in the same case. However, the court emphasized that this doctrine is a rule of practice, not a binding rule of substantive law, and should not be applied if it leads to an unjust result.
Judge Tucker candidly stated that the court’s previous holding in *Jones III* regarding the application of interest from the 2017 valuation date was, “simply put, incorrect.” Because adhering to that prior instruction would result in a “manifest injustice” by ignoring the money Jeffrey owed Diana, the court chose not to follow it strictly.
The appellate court found that the trial court reached the correct, equitable result by calculating interest only on the final $1,770.46 judgment amount, plus the $87.62 in interest the magistrate calculated based on statutory rates applied to that specific debt.
Jeffrey’s sole assignment of error was overruled, and the trial court’s judgment affirming the magistrate’s decision was affirmed.