Fuller v. Fuller, 2018 Ohio 5313

Husband and Wife divorced in 2002 after a 28‑year marriage; Husband had been a high‑earning stockbroker and Wife a long‑term homemaker.
Their separation agreement, incorporated into the decree, required Husband to pay $8,500/month spousal support and expressly reserved the court’s continuing jurisdiction to modify the amount of spousal support based on a change of circumstances; the decree listed only death (either party) and Wife’s remarriage as express termination events.
Husband stopped payments after February 2017 and filed a pro se post‑decree motion in December 2016 seeking termination of his spousal support obligation, alleging retirement and a substantial decrease in income.
The magistrate denied Husband’s motion; the trial court sustained Husband’s objections and entered an order setting Husband’s spousal support at $0/month (stating it was terminating support) and retained jurisdiction.
Wife appealed; the appellate court considered whether the trial court had authority to terminate support based on retirement and whether the court exceeded the relief sought.

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could terminate spousal support based on Husband’s retirement when the decree did not list retirement as a termination event	The decree only listed death and Wife’s remarriage as termination events; court lacked authority to terminate for retirement	Retirement is a substantial change of circumstances; a motion to terminate is legally equivalent to a motion to modify (and Husband proceeded pro se)	Reversed: court lacked authority to terminate based on retirement because decree did not list it as a condition subsequent; the order effectively modified support and exceeded the relief Husband requested
Whether the trial court’s order setting support at $0 constituted relief within the scope of Husband’s motion	Trial court’s order was improper because it functioned as a modification without proper procedural basis	Husband’s motion should be treated as a modification or termination (equivalent), especially given pro se status and how the hearing proceeded	The appellate court held the trial court’s order was a modification (set support to $0) that cannot stand because Husband sought a termination and the decree’s language controls

Kimble v. Kimble, 97 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2002) (holding a motion to terminate spousal support falls within the definition of a modification under R.C. 3105.18(E))
In re Adams, 45 Ohio St.3d 219 (Ohio 1989) (recognizing that termination and modification of alimony are on the same continuum)