Bickham v. Bickham, 2011 Ohio 4213

Appellant William Bickham and appellee Kathy Bickham divorced by agreed decree on December 8, 2006, including a spousal-support provision of $1,750 per month that terminates upon specified events.
In 2009, William moved to terminate spousal support, alleging Kathy cohabitates with Robert Hahn; a magistrate held a hearing in 2010.
Magistrate denied termination in November 2010; the trial court overruled objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision in January 2011.
William appealed, challenging the trial court’s finding that Kathy did not cohabit with Hahn and seeking termination of spousal support.
The court held that cohabitation was proven under the Dickerson factors, reversed the trial court, and remanded to determine a cohabitation date for termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kathy cohabits with Hahn under Dickerson factors	Bickham contends cohabitation exists	Bickham argues no sufficient cohabitation evidence	Cohabitation proven
Whether evidence supports shared expenses as proof of cohabitation	Evidence shows mutual financial arrangement and living together	Evidence is circumstantial and insufficient	Shared expenses minimally satisfied; trial court erred
Whether the trial court properly denied termination despite cohabitation finding	Cohabitation warrants termination of spousal support	Insufficient proof of cohabitation to terminate	Reversed; remanded to determine termination date

State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459 (1997) (defines cohabitation factors and essential elements)
Moell v. Moell, 98 Ohio App.3d 748 (1994) (cohabitation determined by lifestyle and three factors)
Dickerson v. Dickerson, 87 Ohio App.3d 850 (1993) (cohabitation is lifestyle issue; look to actual living together, duration, and shared expenses)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (judgment must be supported by some competent, credible evidence)