Vora v. Vora

[Cite as Vora v. Vora, 2026-Ohio-2358.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY MAHENDRA VORA, : CASE NOS. CA2024-10-069 Appellee and Cross-Appellant, : CA2024-11-072 vs. : OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY SANGITA VORA, : 6/22/2026 Appellant and Cross-Appellee. : : APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. 22DR43169 Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, and Terry W. Posey, Jr.; and Mark Edward Stone Attorney, LLC, and Mark E. Stone, for appellee and cross-appellant. Zachary D. Smith, LLC, and Zachary D. Smith, for appellant and cross-appellee. ____________ OPINION BYRNE, P.J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Sangita Vora ("Sangita"), appeals from certain decisions of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in her divorce from  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Mahendra Vora ("Mahendra").1 Mahendra cross-appeals from the same decisions. For the reasons that follow, we sustain one of Sangita's assignments of error, and we partially sustain one of Mahendra's assignments of error. Otherwise, we affirm the domestic relation court's relevant decisions in full. I. Factual and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Mahendra and Sangita married in India on May 6, 1986. Shortly thereafter, they moved to Michigan, where Mahendra had previously lived and attended school. In 1988, they moved to Cincinnati. Two daughters were born of the marriage: Priyanka in 1989, and Anushree in 1995. Both are now adults. {¶ 3} During the course of the marriage, Sangita was not employed outside the home but managed the household, including child-rearing. Due in part to Sangita's efforts at home, Mahendra was able to focus his efforts on work and what became an extraordinarily successful entrepreneurial career, developing and selling multiple technology-focused companies. {¶ 4} Starting from essentially no assets at the beginning of the marriage, the parties now have assets in both the United States and India valued at well over $100 million. The most significant of these assets is the family business, Vora Ventures, LLC. It is a holding company which acquires or develops technology companies with the hope of turning them into profitable businesses and/or acquisition targets. {¶ 5} In August 2018, problems arose in the marriage. Sangita left the marital home but eventually returned. The parties separated again in April 2019. For two years, 1. After this appeal was submitted for merit review, Mahendra moved the court to use specific anonymizing acronyms for the parties, witnesses, and businesses discussed in this appeal. We deny that motion. The parties used full names in their publicly-filed briefs. None of the parties or witnesses are minors or victims of crime. We find no basis under Sup.R. 45(E) for restricting public access to this opinion or publishing this opinion in a manner that would prevent the public from identifying the parties, witnesses, or businesses at issue. -2-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 the parties attempted to resolve their issues through mediation but they were unsuccessful. In February 2022, Mahendra filed for divorce. {¶ 6} Prior to trial, the parties entered into stipulations. Of relevance to this appeal, the parties stipulated that Vora Ventures was valued at $96 million. {¶ 7} Prior to trial, Mahendra filed a notice, pursuant to Civ.R. 44.1, that he would raise and rely on foreign law with respect to a "Hindu Undivided Family" trust. We will describe this kind of Indian trust, and the specific trust at issue in this case, in more detail below. A. The Contested Hearing {¶ 8} In June 2023, the domestic relations court held a 10-day trial on all contested matters. Numerous witnesses testified and an extraordinary number of exhibits were introduced. The contested matters that are relevant to this appeal were the following: (1) whether a series of charitable transfers of shares of Vora Ventures to the parties' daughters were legitimate transfers, and, if not, whether the court should make an unequal division of marital assets to compensate Sangita for the transfer of these shares; (2) the value of the parties' vacation home in India; (3) the value of an investment in a plot of vacant land in India; and (4) whether certain marital assets were placed into Mahendra's Hindu Undivided Family trust, and, if so, whether those assets remained marital property. We will summarize the facts admitted at trial that are relevant to this appeal. 1. AnuPriya {¶ 9} In 2006, Mahendra purchased a 2.5 acre vacant plot of land in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The plan was to build the family's Indian vacation home on this plot. Planning and discussions lasted two or three years. Construction began in 2014 and was -3-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 completed in 2018. The home is massive, with approximately 21,000 square feet on the first and second floors alone. The parties named the home "AnuPriya," a combination of their daughters' names.2 There is no dispute that AnuPriya was purchased and built entirely with marital funds. {¶ 10} The parties disagreed about the value of AnuPriya and presented competing expert reports and testimony. Mahendra obtained a valuation from an appraisal firm named "JLL." JLL valued AnuPriya at 1,375,341,000 Indian rupees. Sangita obtained a valuation from another appraisal firm, "Colliers." Colliers valued AnuPriya at 1,848,000,000 Indian rupees. For ease of understanding, the expert valuation opinions differed by about $6 million.3 2. SGV and the SGV Plot {¶ 11} The parties also disagreed about the value of another marital asset located in India, consisting of a plot of undeveloped land in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Around 2007 or 2008, Mahendra entered into a joint venture with two business partners. The venture was named "SGV." SGV's only asset is a 16-acre plot of undeveloped land (the "SGV Plot"). At the onset of the venture, Mahendra owned one-third of the shares in SGV. Over time, he sold part of his interest to his partners. He held a 15% share in SGV at the time relevant to this appeal. {¶ 12} As the SGV Plot was SGV's only holding, the parties presented competing expert testimony and reports concerning the value of the SGV Plot, along with the value of Mahendra's 15% interest in SGV. JLL valued Mahendra's 15% interest at 844,917,900 2. Our reference to "AnuPriya" in this opinion is to both the land and the building. 3. This calculation is based on the exchange rate of 82.65 Indian rupees per U.S. Dollar, which as described below, is an exchange rate used in the Colliers report. We use this exchange rate throughout this opinion for consistency and to help readers understand, roughly, the relevant U.S. dollar amounts involved. Of course, the exchange rate fluctuates frequently. -4-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 Indian rupees. Colliers valued Mahendra's 15% interest at 1,095,000,000 Indian rupees. Again, for ease of understanding, the competing expert opinions differed by about $3 million. {¶ 13} Mahendra testified that he owed a debt to his two business partners in SGV for amounts they had spent maintaining the property. He identified an exhibit that indicated that as of April 2023, he owed them 87,472,943 rupees. Mahendra asked that this debt be considered in the overall valuation of his interest in SGV. 3. Vora Ventures, LLC {¶ 14} In 2006, Mahendra formed Vora Ventures. Vora Ventures is a holding company for various technology companies that Mahendra either built from the ground up or acquired. The operation of Vora Ventures was discussed extensively at trial, but for the most part, the companies owned by Vora Ventures would operate in a negative-cash- flow environment for years before they may or may not start producing positive cash flow. Mahendra would often have to obtain bank loans or extend personal loans to these companies to keep them operating. As an example, one of the companies owned by Vora Ventures, which contributed a great portion to its paper value, had been operating at a monthly loss of $1.1 million for three years, between 2019 and 2022. The company continued to operate, relying on loans from Vora Ventures and a $30 million bank loan. Vora Ventures would profit when one of these businesses was sold or started turning a profit. {¶ 15} Vora Ventures' initial operating agreement provided that Mahendra had a 99% controlling interest in Vora Ventures, while Sangita had a 1% interest. {¶ 16} Beginning in May 2017, Mahendra and Sangita began transferring shares of Vora Ventures to their daughters. Mahendra, Priyanka, and Anushree described this as -5-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 an intentional estate planning strategy. The idea was to make tax-advantaged gift transfers of Vora Ventures shares to Priyanka and Anushree at a time when the relative valuation of Vora Ventures was low, and shares could be transferred to the children without exceeding the then $5 million estate and gift tax limitation. Mahendra, Priyanka, and Anushree testified that the family, including Sangita, had numerous and extensive discussions about making these transfers, starting in 2016. {¶ 17} Between May of 2017 and January of 2019, the parties signed revised operating agreements that ultimately resulted in Mahendra holding 51% of the shares of Vora Ventures, Sangita holding 11% of the shares, and Priyanka and Anushree each holding 19% of the shares. Later, both Priyanka and Anushree assigned their shares to non-marital trusts. Mahendra explained that his was done immediately before Priyanka married for purposes of safeguarding their interests in Vora Ventures, and because pre- nuptial agreements are culturally unacceptable in India. {¶ 18} Sangita's signature appears on all of the documents effecting these transfers, including the consent documents necessary to assign these Vora Ventures shares to the daughters' trusts. At trial, Sangita did not deny signing these documents. However, she claimed that she essentially had no knowledge of what she was signing, that single-page documents were handed to her and she signed without question. She testified that she was not involved in or consulted in any manner regarding these transfers as they were ongoing. Sangita argued that what occurred here was essentially a scheme by Mahendra to move her marital interest in Vora Ventures outside of the marital estate. She noted that some of these transfers occurred after she had separated from Mahendra. {¶ 19} Sangita's assertions about her knowledge concerning these Vora Ventures transfers stood in stark contrast to the testimony of the rest of her family. Mahendra, -6-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 Priyanka, and Anushree all testified that Sangita was fully aware and actively involved in the estate planning efforts. And when asked if Priyanka was lying about her being present for these family discussions, Sangita would not agree that her daughter was lying, but indicated that "maybe her perception is that I was there, but in reality, I wasn't there." {¶ 20} Sangita asked the court to award her half of the total value of Vora Ventures ($48 million), rather than half of the 62% owned by her and Mahendra ($29.76 million). 4. The Mahendra Vora "HUF" (Hindu Undivided Family) {¶ 21} A "Hindu Undivided Family," or "HUF," is a legal, taxable entity recognized under Indian law that is similar to an American trust. {¶ 22} The purpose of a HUF is to place assets in a separate legal entity that can be held for the betterment of lineal descendants. The person who forms the HUF is known as the "Karta." The main beneficiaries of the HUF are called "co-parceners." Co- parceners, are, generally, the lineal (blood) descendants of the Karta, plus the Karta. {¶ 23} A second class of beneficiary is called a "member." Members are any person who is in the Karta's immediate family but only related by marriage. Members have no vested interest in assets placed in the HUF. In this case, Mahendra is the Karta of the Mahendra Vora HUF ("MV HUF"). Mahendra, Anushree, and Priyanka are co- parceners. And Sangita is a member. {¶ 24} Mahendra testified that he formed the MV HUF shortly after his marriage to Sangita and then opened a bank account with an Indian bank, the Bank of Baroda, in the name of the MV HUF. {¶ 25} Mahendra testified that in 2006, and again in 2015, he signed formal declarations, declaring AnuPriya to be part of the MV HUF. -7-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 {¶ 26} Finally, Mahendra testified that in the beginning of 2018, he assigned his shares in SGV to the MV HUF. B. The Domestic Relations Court's Decisions {¶ 27} Following the contested hearing, the court issued a series of decisions. The court first issued a partial decision on October 26, 2023. This decision addressed the majority of contested issues but left undecided issues concerning how the parties would handle the payment of the property division (essentially, how Mahendra would pay Sangita her share of the marital property). After briefing on this payment issue, the court then issued a second partial decision on January 8, 2024. After this decision, the parties requested clarification on certain issues, and the court issued a "third and final partial decision" on March 1, 2024. {¶ 28} The court then ordered the parties to submit a proposed final decree of divorce. The parties had issues agreeing to the language in the final divorce decree, and the court eventually had to issue two decisions regarding disputes over language in the final decree. On October 3, 2024, the court issued the final decree of divorce. {¶ 29} We will summarize these decisions as they relate to the issues on appeal. 1. First Partial Decision, Dated October 26, 2023 a. Value of the Marital Portion of Vora Ventures {¶ 30} In its first partial decision, the domestic relations court noted that based on the charitable transfers of Vora Ventures shares to the daughters, Mahendra and Sangita collectively owned 62% of Vora Ventures. The court further noted that Mahendra agreed that this was a marital asset and subject to an equal division, leaving Mahendra and Sangita with $29.76 million each (based on the $96 million valuation). The court further noted that Sangita was arguing that the court should disregard the charitable transfers to -8-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 the daughters, based on her allegedly being kept in the dark about those transfers. Sangita based her argument in equity, seeking an award for her half of the total value of Vora Ventures—that is, $48 million.4 {¶ 31} The court declined to disregard the charitable transfers to the daughters. The court noted Mahendra's argument that Sangita's own financial expert, after reviewing "countless documents," found that Mahendra never committed any act of financial misconduct. The court further found that Vora Ventures' operating agreement and its several revisions, which had effected the transfers, had not been challenged in any court. The court found that absent a successful challenge to the corporate structure of Vora Ventures, "the Court is convinced that its current setup is the way the parties wanted it to be, and therefore should not be changed." The court noted that the outcome may have been different if the transfers had resulted in the daughters owning all or a vast majority of Vora Ventures shares, leaving Sangita with only a small amount, or if Sangita had transferred her interest in Vora Ventures in return for another asset that did not have a comparable value. {¶ 32} Accordingly, the court found that the marital portion of Vora Ventures was valued at $59,520,000, making Sangita's share $29,760,000. b. The MV HUF and Whether Assets Were Transferred to the MV HUF {¶ 33} The court summarized the expert testimony it received from both parties on the nature of, the creation of, and the means of transferring assets to a HUF. The court also noted Mahendra's testimony about the steps he took to create the MV HUF and his efforts to transfer property to the MV HUF, including AnuPriya and his SGV shares. 4. Sangita was not seeking to unwind these transactions. She asked the court to equitably grant her this amount in the overall property division. -9-  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 {¶ 34} Initially, the court addressed whether Mahendra had properly created the MV HUF. It found that he had. The court next addressed whether assets Mahendra claimed were HUF property were in fact transferred to the MV HUF. {¶ 35} With regard to AnuPriya, the court noted competing expert testimony concerning whether Mahendra's two declarations were sufficient to transfer a legal interest in AnuPriya to the MV HUF, notwithstanding the fact that title to AnuPriya remained solely in Mahendra's name up to the time of trial. Ultimately, the court resolved that AnuPriya was not properly transferred to the MV HUF and found that it was a marital asset subject to an equal division. {¶ 36} With regard to the SGV Plot, the court noted that Mahendra testified and introduced exhibits that he had transferred his SGV shares to the MV HUF in April 2018. The court found that Sangita "did not contradict" Mahendra's claims that the SGV shares were properly transferred to the MV HUF. Accordingly, the court found that the SGV shares were in the MV HUF. The court then stated that the SGV shares were marital property, subject to an equal division. {¶ 37} With regard to the Bank of Baroda account, the court made no findings as to whether the account was in the MV HUF. Instead, the court found that the account was marital, and subject to an equal division. c. The Contested Values of AnuPriya and the SGV Plot i. AnuPriya {¶ 38} The court summarized the testimony of the competing expert reports and testimony concerning the value of AnuPriya. The court found that the value of AnuPriya was that suggested by Mahendra's expert: 1,375,341,000 rupees. - 10 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 ii. SGV Plot {¶ 39} The court again summarized the competing expert opinions as to the value of the SGV Plot. Ultimately, the court again sided with Mahendra's expert and found that the value of Mahendra's 15% share of SGV was 844,917,900 rupees. The court also noted that this value would have to be reduced by 87,473,943 rupees because of Mahendra's debt owed to his partners. d. Spousal Support {¶ 40} The court discussed Sangita's request for spousal support, in which she noted that Mahendra earned a salary of $500,000 from Vora Ventures and that his income should be equalized with Sangita, which would result in a monthly spousal support payment of $20,833. The court noted that Mahendra argued that Sangita should receive no spousal support, due to the fact that she would be receiving significant assets in the overall division of property. {¶ 41} The court considered all factors set forth in R.C. 3105.18 (the spousal support statute), including the income of the parties, the relative earning abilities of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the contribution of each party to the education, training, and earning ability of the other party, and the standard of living. After having considered all these factors, the court awarded Sangita monthly spousal support in the amount of $10,000. {¶ 42} The court continued the matter for a hearing and arguments as to how Mahendra would pay Sangita her share of the overall property division, for assets in both the United States and India. - 11 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 2. Second Partial Decision, Dated January 8, 2024 {¶ 43} In the second partial decision, the domestic relations court noted that Mahendra owed Sangita $18,311,054 for assets in the United States. Mahendra asked to pay Sangita this amount over the course of 10 years, with $1.8 million paid yearly. Mahendra further suggested that no interest should accrue on this debt for the first seven years of the repayment plan. {¶ 44} Mahendra presented several arguments for why no interest should accrue during this time: (1) it would incentivize him to pay the total debt in the first seven years; (2) most of the companies owned by Vora Ventures operated at a negative cash flow and he would need liquidity to keep the Vora Ventures companies operating; (3) Mahendra would have to generate significant pre-tax income to pay the annual $1.8 million payment; and (4) Sangita would have access to $8.7 million in marital assets immediately following the divorce. {¶ 45} Mahendra also offered that if any Vora Ventures company was sold during the term of the repayment plan, Sangita would receive 50% of the net, post-sale proceeds, up to a maximum of $10 million in one year, which if done, would satisfy the $1.8 million obligation for that year. {¶ 46} The court noted that Sangita argued that Mahendra's payment plan was "wholly inequitable" for many reasons. She noted that Mahendra did not offer interest- free loans to the companies in Vora Ventures to which he lent personal monies and that allowing him an interest free loan would permit him to freely invest monies owed to Sangita and further enrich himself during the repayment period. Sangita asked that the court impose interest at 10% per annum on the amounts owed under the payment plan. - 12 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 {¶ 47} Ultimately, the court ordered the payment plan suggested by Mahendra, with $1.8 million due per year and no interest on the amount owed for the first seven years. The court ordered 5% interest on any unpaid balance after that first seven years. The court cited the reasons set forth in Mahendra's memorandum as the basis for this no- interest period. {¶ 48} The court further ordered that Mahendra was restrained from selling, giving away, or otherwise transferring his interest in Vora Ventures until such time as Sangita was paid her share of the property division in full. 3. Third Partial Decision, Dated March 1, 2024 {¶ 49} In a third partial decision, the court addressed various questions posed for clarification or reconsideration in the first two partial decisions. Those issues are not relevant to the appeal. However, at the end of this third partial decision, the court ordered Mahendra's attorney to prepare the final decree of divorce, which would incorporate the decisions set forth in the three partial decisions. 4. Disputes over Final Decree of Divorce {¶ 50} The parties could not agree on the language in the final decree of divorce and raised the disputed issues with the domestic relations court, which led to additional briefing and two hearings. The court then issued two decisions regarding these disputes. {¶ 51} Of relevance, Sangita raised issues concerning the valuation date of certain accounts the parties held with Goldman Sachs. Sangita also raised issues regarding whether the parties had agreed to certain language regarding the use of a U.S.-dollar-to- Indian-rupee conversion formula. The court issued rulings on both of these issues that will be discussed in more detail below. - 13 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 {¶ 52} Finally, on October 3, 2024, the domestic relations court issued the entry and final decree and judgment of divorce, which is now the subject of this appeal. {¶ 53} Sangita appealed, raising five assignments of error. Mahendra cross- appealed, raising two assignments of error. II. Law and Analysis A. The Division of Marital Property {¶ 54} Sangita's first assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY. {¶ 55} Sangita presents two issues for review in support of her first assignment of error. As presented in Sangita's brief, those issues are: "Whether the trial court failed to make an equitable division of property based on [Mahendra's] dissipation of significant marital assets" and "Whether the trial court failed to make a finding regarding [Mahendra's] financial misconduct." {¶ 56} The gist of Sangita's argument is that she presented evidence that Mahendra engaged in financial misconduct by orchestrating a series of transfers of Vora Ventures outside of the marital estate by gifting shares of Vora Ventures to the couple's daughters without her consent or knowledge. She alleges that Mahendra presented self- serving testimony that these transfers began in 2017, prior to when Sangita first left the marital residence. But Sangita asserts that the first documentary evidence that these transfers actually occurred was in gift tax returns executed in October 2018, after she had left the marital residence in August 2018. Sangita argues that the transfers were "undertaken as an act of divorce planning after the parties separated in 2018." In other words, Sangita is suggesting that Mahendra undertook an effort to create a record of undated documents that would make it appear like the parties began planning and making - 14 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 charitable transfers of Vora Ventures to the daughters prior to any signs of trouble in the marriage. Sangita suggests that all these transfers occurred after Mahendra realized that the marriage was likely ending. {¶ 57} Sangita argues that the domestic relations courts made no specific factual findings regarding Mahendra's alleged financial misconduct and erred by instead simply finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the corporate structure of Vora Ventures as set forth in the operating agreements. 1. Applicable Law {¶ 58} Property division in a divorce case is a two-step process. Roetting v. Roetting, 2015-Ohio-2461, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). First, the trial court must classify the property by determining what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. Id.; R.C. 3105.171(B). Second, after classifying the property as separate or marital, the trial court must disburse a spouse's separate property to that spouse and divide the marital property equally between the spouses. Id. at ¶ 18; R.C. 3105.171 (C) and (D). However, if the trial court finds that an equal division would be inequitable, then the court must divide the property in a manner it determines is equitable. Id.; R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). {¶ 59} In determining whether an equal division of marital assets would be inequitable, "'a court may consider whether one party has engaged in financial misconduct.'" Grow v. Grow, 2012-Ohio-1680, ¶ 103 (12th Dist.), quoting Smith v. Emery- Smith, 2010-Ohio-5302 at ¶ 50 (11th Dist.). R.C. 3105.171(E)(3) provides that "if a spouse has engaged in financial misconduct, including but not limited to the dissipation, destruction, concealment, or fraudulent disposition of assets, the court may compensate the offended spouse with a distributive award or with a greater award of marital property. - 15 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 The burden of proving financial misconduct is on the complaining party." Emery-Smith at id. {¶ 60} To facilitate meaningful appellate review of the trial court's division of marital property, R.C. 3105.171(G) requires the trial court to "make written findings of fact that support the determination that the marital property has been equitably divided . . ." Roetting at ¶ 19. These findings are especially important where the division results in an unequal distribution of property. Id. The requirements of R.C. 3105.171(G) are satisfied when the trial court indicates the basis for its determinations in sufficient detail to enable the reviewing court to ascertain whether the property division is fair, equitable, and in accordance with the law. Id., citing Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 97 (1988). 2. Standard of Review {¶ 61} This court reviews findings that property is marital or separate or that a party has engaged in financial misconduct pursuant to the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard. Renz v. Renz, 2011-Ohio-1634, ¶ 46 (12th Dist.); Zollar v. Zollar, 2009-Ohio- 1008, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). Such findings will be upheld if supported by competent and credible evidence. Kochaliyev v. Kochaliyeva, 2025-Ohio-1140, ¶ 24 (12th Dist.). In undertaking the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence analysis, an appellate court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact "clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20, quoting Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 (9th Dist.2001). {¶ 62} But we review the trial court's decision to make or not make a distributive award to compensate for financial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard. - 16 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 Robinson v. Robinson, 2013-Ohio-4435, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), citing Mikhail v. Mikhail, 2005- Ohio-322, ¶ 25 (6th Dist.). Additionally, the trial court is given broad discretion in fashioning a property division and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Roberts v. Roberts, 2013-Ohio-1733, ¶ 34 (12th Dist.). 3. Analysis {¶ 63} We have reviewed the extensive record in this case and find that the domestic relations court's decision to equitably divide Mahendra and Sangita's 62% interest in Vora Ventures was supported by competent and credible evidence. Furthermore, we do not find any abuse of discretion in the failure of the court to make an unequal division of assets based on the charitable transfers of 19% interests of Vora Ventures, respectively, to both Priyanka and Anushree. {¶ 64} Before we discuss the evidence, we note that Sangita argues that the domestic relations court failed to make factual findings regarding Mahendra's alleged financial misconduct. It is true that the court never expressed an explicit finding on financial misconduct. But the court did specifically note Mahendra's argument in the first partial decision that Sangita's own financial expert "found that after careful review of countless documents and financial transactions, Husband never committed any act of financial misconduct." Sangita has not presented any argument on appeal suggesting that this argument lacked merit. {¶ 65} In assessing Sangita's equitable claim for half the value of Vora Ventures, the court observed that the parties had presented evidence by way of legal experts (two attorneys specializing in corporate work, and a law professor), who offered differing views on whether the transfers were properly executed through the three modifications to the Vora Ventures operating agreements. - 17 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 {¶ 66} The domestic relations court made no specific findings regarding the import of this testimony but stated that Sangita had not challenged the corporate structure of Vora Ventures in a court of competent jurisdiction. The court seemed to imply that the legal propriety of making the transfers through revisions to the operating agreement was a less important issue in terms of deciding how the marital estate should be divided because, as the court found, the "current setup is the way the parties wanted it to be." This statement is an implicit rejection of Sangita's argument that the transfers of Vora Ventures were an act of financial misconduct by Mahendra. {¶ 67} We conclude that competent and credible evidence supports the domestic relations court's conclusion that the ownership structure of Vora Ventures is what was intended by the parties. Mahendra testified that there were discussions between he and Sangita about how to transfer wealth to their daughters in the most tax efficient manner as early as 2001. He explained that every year he and Sangita tried to give gifts to the daughters up to the federal exclusion amount because it was free of taxes. According to Mahendra, this gifting was important to Sangita, and it was a "pet peeve" of hers if he forgot and she had to remind him to do it. {¶ 68} Mahendra, Priyanka, and Anushree testified concerning planning and discussions between all four family members concerning the charitable transfers of Vora Ventures from the parents to the children. They testified that these discussions began in 2016 and were connected to uncertainty about the upcoming presidential election. All three testified that the family was concerned that, based on who won the election, there may be a reduction or elimination of the approximate $5 million lifetime estate and gift tax exemption in effect at the time. - 18 -  Warren CA2024-10-069 CA2024-11-072 {¶ 69} Mahendra testified that at the time of these initial discussions, the valuation of Vora Ventures was relatively low. The company was not "exactly blossoming." So, the family perceived this was a good time to transfer shares of Vora Ventures to the daughters. In order to do this, Mahendra commissioned a company to issue a formal valuation of Vora Ventures, at an estimated cost of approximately $15,000 to $30,000. That work resulted in Vora Ventures being valued at approximately $15 million. At that valuation, a transfer of 15% of Vora Ventures would total approximately $2.25 million, well under the lifetime exemption amount. {¶ 70} The first transfer to achieve these goals occurred in May 2017 and was documented through a revised Vora Ventures operating agreement, signed by both Mahendra and Sangita. Mahendra transferred 29% of his interest in Vora Ventures to Sangita, resulting in Mahendra owning 70% of Vora Ventures and Sangita owning 30%. Then, each parent gifted 7.5% shares to each daughter. This resulted in each daughter owning 15% shares, Mahendra owning 55%, and Sangita owning 15%. {¶ 71} Mahendra testified that after the first transfer, he and Sangita had additional conversations about transferring more shares to the daughters. They discussed the percentages, and what would be the correct amount. Mahendra explained that whatever they decided, he would need to retain majority ownership over Vora Ventures because any lender would need to know that Mahendra had authority to obtain loans on behalf of the business. {¶ 72} Mahendra testified that when the estate