A house purchased before marriage can become a point of dispute during divorce, particularly when a couple has lived in the property and mortgage payments are later made through a joint bank account. In Ohio, a divorce case involving a property bought by a husband six years before his marriage raised questions about whether rental income and financial contributions during the marriage had changed its ownership status. The man had later rented the house to his brother, who continued paying rent while the couple was married.In a November 6, 2026, decision, the Ohio Court of Appeals, First District, upheld the husband’s ownership of the property and an order requiring his former wife to pay $20,000 towards his attorney fees. The ruling came in Ellison v. Ellison, case number C-260069, with the judgment available on Justia. The court found that the husband had sufficiently traced the rental income, which exceeded the property’s mortgage payments, and that the trial court had properly considered the wife’s conduct during the divorce proceedings when awarding legal fees.
How the property became part of the divorce dispute
Stephen Ellison purchased a house on Elbrook Avenue in August 2012, six years before marrying Sherrun Ellison on September 1, 2018. The couple lived there from around September 2017 until August or September 2018, around the time of their marriage.After they moved out, Stephen rented the property to his brother and his brother’s wife. According to his testimony, the initial monthly rent was $850, which later increased to $1,000 and eventually $1,500 in 2023. When Sherrun filed for divorce in May 2023, the ownership of the house became one of the unresolved issues. She argued that the property should be treated as marital property because money from their joint bank account had been used to pay its mortgage.She also maintained that the couple had contributed to the property’s upkeep during their marriage. Their claimed contributions included replacing the carpet and stove, painting the interior and paying for regular maintenance. However, Stephen disputed these claims. He said the improvements had been completed and paid for before the marriage and that the rental income from his brother covered the mortgage payments.
Why the court considered the house his separate property
During the divorce proceedings, Stephen presented a lease agreement with his brother and bank statements showing deposits and transfers that he said came from rental payments. He explained that his brother and sister-in-law paid rent through cash, checks and payment applications. He deposited the money into his personal bank account and then used it to pay the mortgage or transferred it into the couple’s joint account to cover the payments.His brother also testified that he and his wife had rented the house since 2017, initially paying $850 a month plus utilities. He confirmed that the rent increased over time and that they eventually paid the full amount, even when payments were sometimes delayed.The trial court accepted their testimony and found that the rental income exceeded the mortgage payments. It also concluded that no marital money or labour had been used for improvements or maintenance that would create a marital interest in the property. The court therefore classified the entire Elbrook property as Stephen’s separate property.
Why the wife was ordered to pay $20,000 in legal fees
The divorce also involved a separate dispute over attorney fees. Stephen argued that his former wife’s actions had increased the cost and duration of the proceedings. His lawyer testified that he had accumulated $56,328 in attorney fees over approximately two years of litigation, excluding trial fees. She described several issues that required additional legal work, including changes in legal representation, withdrawn settlement agreements and disputes involving the children and property.The trial court ordered Sherrun to contribute $20,000 towards those expenses. It considered her conduct during the proceedings and found that some of her actions had unnecessarily prolonged the case. Sherrun challenged the award, arguing that the court had relied on statements made during settlement negotiations and had not properly considered Stephen’s own conduct. She also argued that the fee award was punitive.The appeals court rejected these arguments. It explained that Ohio law allows courts to award reasonable attorney fees in divorce cases when doing so is equitable. Judges can consider the parties’ financial circumstances and their behaviour during litigation. The court also clarified that a judge does not have to establish serious misconduct before awarding legal fees. A party’s conduct can be considered when it unnecessarily increases the time and expense of resolving a divorce.
Appeals court upholds the original decision
The Ohio appeals court found no reason to overturn the lower court’s findings. It concluded that the evidence supported Stephen’s claim that rental income covered the mortgage and that the house had retained its status as his separate property. It also upheld the $20,000 attorney-fee award, finding that the trial court had appropriately considered the circumstances of the divorce proceedings. The November 6 decision affirmed the original judgment, leaving both the property classification and the attorney-fee order unchanged.The ruling highlights how a property purchased before marriage can retain its separate status when its owner can establish the source of mortgage payments and show that marital contributions did not create an ownership interest. It also demonstrates that courts can consider how spouses conduct themselves during divorce proceedings when deciding whether one should contribute to the other’s legal expenses.
