The dissipation of marital assets in divorce is always something to watch for, especially when the marital asset is a $1,800 bottle of 1976 The Glenrothes Single Cask Single Malt Scotch Whisky. An Ohio court recently had to decide what to do when an expensive bottle of Scotch turned up missing.
The Shot
If, as they say, ‘all happy families are alike, and each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way’ the case of the missing scotch is proof. In the recent Ohio matter the Mother and Father had been married over twenty years. Together, they raised three children, two now-adult children and one minor child. The Mother, Father, and child lived together in a house located in Blue Ash, Ohio outside of Cincinnati.
Then in April 2022, ongoing marital problems caused the couple to separate, and the Father moved out of their Blue Ash home. Following their separation, the relationship between the parties continued to deteriorate. Father eventually asked for an received a domestic violence injunction against Mother.
During the final hearing in their dissolution of the marriage, among the many claims, the Father argued that the Mother had denied him the opportunity to retrieve his personal items from the Blue Ash home. During the trial, the Father testified he had left behind his family memorabilia, some religious heirlooms, and most importantly, a bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch before he had moved out of the marital home.
The Father explained to the court that while he was given a brief opportunity to collect a few of his personal items from the home, the Mother never gave him a sufficient opportunity to meaningfully collect his belongings. He testified the Mother told him that she put the items he had left behind in storage and that he would be able to retrieve them the next time she was in Ohio.
Despite the Mother’s telling him that his personal possessions were in storage, and that he would be able to retrieve them, it was just not so. In fact, the Mother would later testify that she called a trash service and had all of the Father’s personal property (his heirlooms, religious mementos, and of course, the Scotch) destroyed. She also admitted that she did not tell the Father before tossing his personal belongings in the municipal dump.
At the trial, the court ruled that because of the Mother’s destruction of Father’s bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch and his other personal effects, she was to pay him $5,000. The Mother appealed.
Florida Dissipation
I’ve written about dissipation of marital assets before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.
Some of the factors to justify an unequal distribution of the property include things like the financial situation the parties, the length of the marriage, whether someone has interrupted their career or an educational opportunity, or how much one spouse contributed to the other’s career or education.
Another important factor is whether one of the parties intentionally dissipated, wasted, depleted, or destroyed any of the marital assets after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing of the petition.
Dissipation of marital assets, such as spending marital funds on extramarital relationships, excessive gambling, and drug use, are examples which happens a lot. Less common is gifting your husband’s $1,800 bottle of scotch whiskey to trash collectors. Misconduct may serve as a basis for assigning the dissipated asset to the spending spouse when calculating equitable distribution.
When considering whether the dissipation of an asset resulted from misconduct, courts look to see if a spouse used marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. Merely mismanaging or simple squandering of marital assets is not enough. There has to be evidence of intentional dissipation or destruction.
The Chaser
On appeal, the Mother took issue with the court’s $5,000 contempt penalty for having Father’s items destroyed. The appellate court found that the penalty constituted an equitable offset because the Mother had denied Father the opportunity to collect his equitable distribution of household goods and furnishings.
This offset included all “remaining household goods, keepsakes, and furnishings,” which would include the bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch. Accordingly, the appellate court rule the Mother’s claim that the family court failed to include the value of the bottle of scotch in the marital assets was without merit.
The Ohio Court of Appeal opinion is here.
