Eichenlaub v. Eichenlaub
120 N.E.3d 380
| Oh. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Scioto | 2018Background
- Parties married first in 1990, divorced in 1998, continued cohabiting for a brief time, then remarried in October 2001; they had three children (one conceived during the post-divorce cohabitation).
- Divorce filed in 2015; final hearing Sept. 8, 2017; trial court granted divorce Dec. 4, 2017.
- Trial court designated appellee the residential parent, divided property, and awarded appellee spousal support of $800/month for an indefinite term, retaining jurisdiction to modify.
- Appellant (Randy) appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by considering the parties’ prior marriage/cohabitation period under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(e)/(n), and (2) awarding indefinite spousal support was improper.
- Trial court relied on statutory spousal-support factors (including R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(n) for other relevant factors), found the parties effectively depended on appellant for nearly 22 years, and concluded appellee was a former homemaker with limited earning capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eichenlaub) | Defendant's Argument (R. Eichenlaub) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a trial court consider a prior marriage or post-divorce cohabitation when awarding spousal support? | Court may consider all statutory factors and other relevant, equitable factors; appellee argued prior history shows long-term dependency. | Trial court erred by using events outside the defined "duration of the marriage" (2001–2017) and by counting the first marriage/cohabitation for spousal-support analysis. | Court affirmed: trial court permissibly relied on R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(n) and adequately explained why the prior marriage/cohabitation were relevant. |
| Did an alleged prior separation agreement barring spousal support preclude consideration of the earlier marriage? | Appellee: no such agreement was proved or litigated; court could consider history. | Defendant: prior divorce included waiver of spousal support, so court should not count the earlier marriage. | Court declined to consider the argument (forfeited): appellant failed to present evidence or raise the issue at trial; no plain-error showing. |
| Was an indefinite term of spousal support appropriate? | Appellee: former homemaker, limited earning capacity, primary caregiver of minor children—Kunkle exception fits. | Defendant: marriage duration (16 yrs), not elderly, and appellee recently began working; indefinite award inappropriate. | Court affirmed: Kunkle exception applicable (homemaker with limited opportunity); trial court reasonably found appellee lacked ability to be fully self-supporting. |
| Was retention of jurisdiction relevant to the propriety of an indefinite award? | Appellee: retention of jurisdiction allows modification if circumstances change. | Defendant: retained jurisdiction insufficient to justify indefinite support. | Court held retention of jurisdiction mitigates indefinite burden; modification remains available, supporting affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (spousal-support indefinite-term exception for long marriage, advanced age, or homemaker with limited employment prospects)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (trial court must consider statutory spousal-support factors and disclose basis sufficiently for appellate review)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (trial court may use alternative valuation/termination dates when equitable under facts)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is narrowly and cautiously applied)