2013 Ohio 3711
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- John A. Kasper, Jr. (Husband) and Rebecca Taylor Kasper (Wife) divorced in April 2011; decree ordered spousal support of $4,500/month for 74 months or until death or Wife’s remarriage, and reserved jurisdiction to modify support for changed circumstances.
- Wife subsequently moved in with and later purchased a home with Jeffrey Graham; they are engaged and cohabiting.
- Husband moved to modify/terminate spousal support based on Wife’s cohabitation and alleged reduction in Wife’s living expenses; Wife filed a cross-motion to modify.
- Magistrate recommended denying both motions; trial court overruled Husband’s objections and found no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.
- Trial court concluded the decree did not make cohabitation an automatic terminating event and that Wife’s overall expenses had not substantially decreased since the divorce.
- Husband appealed; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife’s cohabitation with fiancé automatically terminates spousal support despite decree language omitting cohabitation as a terminating event | Cohabitation should be treated as remarriage and thus terminate support | Decree did not list cohabitation as a terminating event; cohabitation is a factor for modification, not automatic termination | Denied — cohabitation is not a per se terminating event absent decree language; it is relevant only as a change-in-circumstances factor |
| Whether Wife’s reduced living expenses (from cohabitation) constitute a substantial change in circumstances authorizing modification | Wife’s expenses have materially decreased due to shared living costs; court should reduce support to zero | Wife’s total expenses have not substantially decreased; some listed expenses remain or were increased post-divorce (new home, vehicle, debt) | Denied — trial court permissibly found no substantial change in circumstances and thus lacked jurisdiction to modify support |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (Ohio 2009) (trial court must find a substantial change in circumstances before modifying spousal support)
- Dickerson v. Dickerson, 87 Ohio App.3d 848 (6th Dist. 1993) (cohabitation is a lifestyle determination, not merely a housing arrangement)
- Mottice v. Mottice, 118 Ohio App.3d 731 (9th Dist. 1997) (spousal support modification reviewed for abuse of discretion)