Slabe v. Slabe

Slabe v. Slabe

Case No. 2024-L-075, 2025-Ohio-4722

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Lake County

Relevant Facts

• Kimberly and Brendan Slabe executed a prenuptial agreement on June 15, 1998, and married on June 20, 1998

• The parties have four emancipated children

• Brendan Slabe’s family founded Slabe Machine Products, LLC (SMP) in 1939, and both brothers received stock in piecemeal fashion from their parents beginning in their teenage years

• The prenuptial agreement expressly stated that Kim had no claim to nor right in Brendan’s interest in SMP, including any accretion in value, and waived any claim to SMP shareholdings or other rights and incidents of ownership

• SMP was owned by six individual trusts established by the Slabe family, with Brendan benefitting from only three of the six trusts

• After 23 years of marriage, on September 9, 2021, Kimberly filed for divorce, naming Brendan and SMP as defendants

• On March 11, 2022, the trial court granted temporary spousal support of $3,500 per month, effective January 1, 2022

• SMP was sold to UPC Holdings III Corp., with sale proceeds of approximately $64,500,000, including UPC Holdings III stock valued at $6,500,000, plus additional SMP assets of approximately $26,500,000

• The sale proceeds were transferred directly to Oppidum Holding Co., a successor entity formed by the Trusts and owned by the same six trusts that previously owned SMP

• The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on July 14 and 17, 2023, solely to determine the validity of the prenuptial agreement, and concluded on August 29, 2023 that the agreement was valid and enforceable

• The final five-day divorce trial was held July 8-12, 2024, and the trial court directed the sale of the marital residence for approximately $1,300,000

• On October 2, 2024, the trial court granted the divorce on grounds of incompatibility and separation

Legal Issues

• Whether the prenuptial agreement executed by the parties was valid and enforceable, particularly regarding Brendan’s interest in SMP

• Whether Brendan made material misrepresentations regarding his ownership interest in SMP that would vitiate the prenuptial agreement

• Whether the trial court properly classified Brendan’s interest in SMP (and the successor entity Oppidum) as separate property

• Whether the trial court erred in failing to award Kimberly a distributive award under Ohio Revised Code Section 3105.171(E)

• Whether the trial court’s retroactive modification of temporary spousal support from $3,500 to $7,500 per month was proper

• Whether the trial court properly calculated and awarded spousal support and attorney fees

Positions of the Parties

• Kimberly Slabe (Plaintiff-Appellant/Wife) argued that the trial court’s enforcement of the prenuptial agreement constituted an abuse of discretion because Brendan made material misrepresentations by claiming assets in the agreement that he did not own, specifically regarding his interest in SMP valued at $2,500,000. She further contended the trial court improperly classified Brendan’s interest in SMP as separate property, that she was entitled to a distributive award from Brendan’s separate property under R.C. 3105.171(E), that the spousal support award lacked a termination date, and that the retroactive modification of temporary spousal support was improper.

• Brendan Slabe (Defendant-Appellee/Husband) argued that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable because it was entered freely without fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching; there was full disclosure of assets; and the terms do not promote divorce or profiteering. He contended that his interest in SMP (held through trusts) was properly classified as separate property under the prenuptial agreement, that distributive awards do not apply to separate property under R.C. 3105.171(E), and that the parties clearly intended the agreement to supplant the statutory division framework regarding his SMP interest.

Decision of the Court and Reasons

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment. The court upheld the trial court’s finding that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, rejecting Kimberly’s fraud claim because she knew about SMP as a family business and understood its nature, and there was no evidence that disclosure of zero ownership interest would have altered her decision to sign the agreement. The court found competent, credible evidence that any alleged misrepresentation by Brendan was not material to the transaction. The court affirmed that Brendan’s interest in SMP (held through trusts) constituted separate property controlled by the prenuptial agreement and was not subject to division as marital property. Regarding property division, the court affirmed the trial court’s award to Kimberly of the marital residence proceeds (approximately $1,200,000), insurance proceeds for her vehicle ($47,392), Brendan’s 401(k) (approximately $1,270,000), and Brendan’s Roth IRA (approximately $201,000), while Brendan received his Range Rover. The court found it equitable to award the Range Rover regardless of its unvalued status given the overall property distribution. However, the court vacated the trial court’s retroactive modification of temporary spousal support from $3,500 to $7,500 per month and the lump-sum judgment of $116,000 and remanded these issues for further consideration and findings of fact. The court also remanded the trial court’s final spousal support order of $7,500 per month and the division of marital assets for further consideration.