Czalkiewicz v. Czalkiewicz
2017 Ohio 747
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Theodore (Ted) and Paula Czalkiewicz divorced in June 2011; the decree incorporated a separation agreement requiring Ted to pay spousal support and Paula to pay child support, with CSEA to collect/pay the difference while a child support order existed.
- Child support terminated when the child turned 18 and graduated high school in mid-2014. CJFS-OCSS issued administrative findings recommending termination of the child support order, which the trial court accepted as a revised child support order.
- Paula stopped receiving spousal-support payments in June 2014 and filed a motion to show cause, motion to secure future spousal support, and for attorney fees. Ted moved to dismiss, arguing the CJFS-OCSS action effectively terminated his spousal obligation.
- A magistrate and then the trial court denied Ted’s procedural challenges and found him in contempt for nonpayment. The court also rejected Ted’s contention that CJFS-OCSS terminated his spousal-support obligation.
- On appeal, the Eighth District rejected Ted’s procedural arguments but found that, on the merits, Paula’s relationship met the Dickerson cohabitation test and therefore spousal support should have been terminated effective June 1, 2014; the contempt finding was reversed and the support obligation vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CJFS-OCSS administrative findings terminating child support also terminated spousal support | Paula: CJFS-OCSS action addressed only child support; spousal support remains in effect | Ted: CJFS-OCSS findings (initially mislabeling parties) and court acceptance effectively ended his spousal obligation | Held: CJFS-OCSS dealt only with child support; trial court acceptance did not terminate spousal support |
| Whether trial court could proceed on Paula’s show-cause and deny Ted’s motion to dismiss | Paula: Court properly enforced divorce decree and heard contempt action | Ted: Proceedings were improper because administrative action had ended his obligation | Held: Court correctly proceeded; no procedural bar to contempt hearing |
| Whether denial of dismissal or proceeding constituted implied relief from judgment | Paula: No implied relief; court simply enforced decree | Ted: Denial equates to improper relief from judgement | Held: No implied relief; actions were appropriate given decree and CJFS-OCSS scope |
| Whether Paula’s relationship constituted "cohabitation" terminating spousal support | Paula: She maintained a separate residence, paid some expenses, and the funds from boyfriend were a loan; not cohabiting | Ted: Relationship met Dickerson factors (living together, sustained duration, shared expenses) so spousal support should terminate | Held: Court of appeals found evidence met Dickerson factors; spousal support terminated eff. June 1, 2014 and contempt vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. Dickerson, 87 Ohio App.3d 848 (6th Dist. 1993) (adopts test for "cohabitation": actual living together, sustained duration, shared day-to-day expenses)