## Facts

- Edward S. Siefert filed a complaint for divorce from Susan M. Siefert in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
- Before the parties married, Susan purchased a 1992 Ford Mustang in 2001 for $7,500, and the certificate of title was solely in her name.
- The parties married on July 13, 2002.
- After the marriage, Edward and Susan restored the Mustang together and spent substantial marital time, labor, and money on the project.
- The Mustang’s value increased from $7,500 to a stipulated appraised value of $27,200.
- On June 9, 2005, during the marriage, Susan transferred title to the Mustang into both parties’ names jointly, with rights of survivorship.
- In dividing property, the trial court concluded that Susan’s transfer of title “converted any separate property claims she may have had into a marital asset,” treating the Mustang as marital property.
- Susan appealed, arguing the evidence did not show she intended to make an inter vivos gift of her premarital $7,500 interest to Edward merely by placing the title in both names.

## Issues

1. Whether the domestic-relations court abused its discretion by finding that Susan relinquished her premarital separate interest in the Mustang when she retitled the vehicle in both spouses’ names with survivorship, absent clear and convincing evidence of an inter vivos gift.

## Decision

- The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
- The court held there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish, by clear and convincing proof, that Susan intended an inter vivos gift of her premarital separate interest in the Mustang when she transferred the title into joint names.
- Because the trial court treated joint retitling as dispositive of conversion to marital property without adequate proof of donative intent, it abused its discretion.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to properly classify and divide the parties’ interests in the Mustang consistent with Ohio law governing separate property and gifts.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 3105.171, assets acquired before marriage are generally separate property, and the court must classify property as marital or separate before dividing it.
- A claimed inter vivos gift must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, including: (1) the donor’s intent to make an immediate gift, (2) delivery, and (3) acceptance after the donor relinquishes control.
- Retitling an asset into both spouses’ names (including survivorship language) is evidence that may support donative intent, but it is not, by itself, conclusive proof that the owner intended to give away a premarital separate interest.
- In reviewing property classification and related findings in a divorce, an appellate court examines whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent, credible evidence and whether the trial court acted within its discretion.

## Conclusion

Siefert v. Siefert holds that a spouse’s act of transferring a premarital vehicle’s title into both spouses’ names with rights of survivorship does not, standing alone, satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard for an inter vivos gift that extinguishes the owner’s premarital separate-property interest; the appellate court therefore reversed the property classification and remanded for a proper division recognizing the separate-property component.


Siefert v. Siefert, 973 N.E.2d 834 (2012)