The woman filed an agreement claiming a share of the house-sale money.
However, on October 26, an Ohio appeals court ruled in Lokash’s favour, allowing her to receive $41,466.50 from the sale. A man in Ohio who refused to share money from the sale of his house with his former partner has lost a court battle over an agreement they signed when they were planning to get married. James R Cline argued that his former partner, Ashley A Lokash, had not spent enough money on improving the house to claim a share of the sale proceeds.
The dispute began with a house the couple bought in Niles, Ohio, in 2021, according to Mortgage Professional America (MPA). In September 2021, they signed a written agreement explaining how their money would be handled. Lokash could spend up to $40,000 on improving the property. The relationship ended in March 2022, and Lokash moved out of the house. In September 2022, around six months after their separation, Cline put the house up for sale. The house was sold to a buyer in December 2023, but the disagreement continued. The total amount involved in the dispute was $71,897.61. His argument was that she had agreed to spend money improving the house but had contributed only a small amount compared with the $40,000 mentioned in the document. The agreement did not say Lokash must spend $40,000. The court examined records showing that Lokash had spent $1,191.34 on materials after the agreement was signed. The judges found that she had contributed money towards the property and that the agreement did not require her to spend the full $40,000. Lokash was entitled to $11,035.38 as reimbursement for earlier expenses. This included $2,525 she had contributed towards buying the house and $3,325 spent on flooring and carpeting. She was also entitled to half of the net proceeds from the house sale, amounting to $30,431.12. Together, these payments brought her total share to $41,466.50. Cline was entitled to the remaining money, including the $15,000 that the company had already paid him.
Because it could not decide who should receive it, the company paid Cline $15,000 and kept another $55,568.51 aside. Because she had not fulfilled her part of the arrangement, he therefore argued that the agreement should not be enforced. the agreement they had signed remained in place Although they were no longer together. However, the judges found that Cline had misunderstood an important part of what the couple had signed.
At the time, they planned a future together and decided to invest in the property. Lokash agreed to contribute money towards renovations and other improvements Although the house was registered only in Cline’s name. They financed the purchase through a loan guaranteed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. If the house was later sold, she would first receive reimbursement for her spending, up to the agreed limit. The money remaining after that would be divided equally between them. But their plans changed within months. Cline continued living there and kept furniture that she had purchased. That became a problem when Cline decided to sell the property. Lokash wanted to ensure that the money she had contributed would be taken into account when the property was sold. She submitted a copy of their agreement and a written statement to the local property records office so anyone checking the property’s records could see that she was claiming a share of the money from its sale. When Premiere Settlement & Title, the company handling the sale, examined the records, it discovered her claim. Rather than release the money to either person, the company asked the court to settle the matter. Cline believed Lokash had not done enough to receive the money promised under their agreement. It only set that amount as the maximum she could contribute. This meant she could spend less and still meet the conditions of their arrangement. Her purchases included paint and supplies from Sherwin Williams, items from Handyman and carpeting from Tondo Carpets. Cline also questioned whether these purchases had actually improved the property. But the judges found another problem with his argument. The materials Lokash had bought were in Cline’s possession, and he had chosen not to use them. The court concluded that he could not use his own decision not to use the materials as a reason to deny her the money promised under the agreement. The remaining amount covered other purchases, including hardware and furnishings. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.
After examining the agreement and the couple’s spending records, the court upheld the earlier decision in Lokash’s favour.