An Ohio man has been allowed to keep sole ownership of a house he bought six years before getting married. State appeals judges rejected his former wife’s claim that paying the mortgage with shared money during their marriage had turned the house into marital property. The ruling was issued on 6 November 2026 by the Ohio Court of Appeals for the First District. It upheld a Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court decision in the divorce case involving Stephen P. Ellison and Sherrun L. Ellison. The three-judge appeals panel also upheld an order requiring the former wife to pay $20,000 towards her ex-husband’s legal costs. The judges said her actions had unnecessarily dragged out the court case and increased the time needed to resolve it. The decision supports existing Ohio property laws on homes bought before marriage, tracking the source of mortgage payments and the rules for awarding legal fees in divorce cases.
Financial tracing of premarital real estate
The property dispute involved a house on Elbrook Avenue, which Stephen Ellison bought in 2012. The couple married on 1 September 2018 and lived together for several years before Sherrun Ellison filed for divorce on 11 May 2023. During the trial, the former wife argued that the Elbrook Avenue house should be treated as marital property and divided equally. She claimed that money earned during the marriage and shared household funds had been used to reduce the mortgage balance. However, evidence presented in court showed that after the couple moved out, the husband rented the property to his brother. The brother’s rental payments were deposited into a bank account and used directly to cover the mortgage payments. In its decision under docket number C-260069, Judges Bock, Kinsley and Moore ruled that the lower court had not made a mistake in deciding that the house remained the husband’s separate property. The court explained that property owned before marriage can remain separate property under Ohio law as long as its ownership and financial history can be clearly traced. This remains true even if the money has temporarily been mixed with shared funds. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion in characterizing Elbrook as Husband’s separate property,” the judges wrote in their unanimous decision. They noted that the husband had provided enough evidence to show that the mortgage payments came from the rental income kept in a separate account.
Award of legal fees and court conduct
The First District Court of Appeals also reviewed the former wife’s challenge to the order requiring her to pay $20,000 towards her ex-husband’s legal fees. During the original court case, the husband’s lawyer provided evidence showing that he had spent more than $56,000 on legal fees over two years of active proceedings. The trial court found that the wife’s legal arguments and actions had unnecessarily extended the case. This had increased the time and costs involved for both sides.During the appeal, the former wife argued that the lower court had made a mistake by considering statements and actions linked to settlement discussions. She claimed that using this information went against Ohio Evidence Rule 408, known as Ohio Evid.R. 408. The appeals court rejected this argument. The judges explained that while statements made during settlement talks cannot be used to prove who is responsible for the main legal dispute, they can be considered when deciding a request for legal fees under Revised Code § 3105.73(A).The court also explained that Ohio law gives trial judges wide powers to decide whether awarding legal fees is fair. They can consider how both parties behaved during the case and whether their actions increased the time and cost of the legal proceedings. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and considering evidence of Wife’s conduct during settlement negotiations,” the appeals court stated. It therefore upheld the order requiring the former wife to pay $20,000. The ruling fully upholds the Hamilton County court’s decision and brings the appeals process between the former spouses to an end.