Landry v. Landry
2017 Ohio 564
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jimmy and Cynthia Landry divorced in 2006; their divorce decree incorporated a spousal-support agreement requiring Jimmy to pay Cynthia $930/month.
- The decree stated support would continue “until Plaintiff’s normal retirement age, 62 or 65 years of age,” subject to court jurisdiction, death, or Cynthia’s remarriage.
- In January 2015 Jimmy moved to terminate support after turning 62, asserting reaching age 62 alone ended his obligation.
- A magistrate denied the motion, construing the provision to require both retirement and being at least 62; Jimmy objected.
- The trial court independently reviewed the provision, found it ambiguous, adopted the magistrate’s interpretation (retirement plus age ≥62), and overruled Jimmy’s motion.
- Jimmy appealed, challenging the trial court’s ambiguity finding and its interpretation of the parties’ intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the spousal-support termination clause is ambiguous | The clause terminates support when Jimmy reaches age 62; no actual retirement is required | The clause contemplates termination upon Jimmy’s retirement, provided he is at least normal retirement age (62 or 65) | The clause is ambiguous; court reasonably construed it to require retirement and being at least 62 |
| Whether the trial court properly clarified the parties’ intent | Court should give plain meaning to age reference (terminate at 62) | Court may interpret ambiguous decree to effect parties’ intent and consider equities | Trial court’s interpretive decision was within discretion and not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, 91 Ohio App.3d 341 (2d Dist. 1993) (trial court may interpret ambiguous divorce decree and resolve confusion)
- Seders v. Seders, 42 Ohio App.3d 155 (9th Dist. 1987) (court may clarify ambiguous language by considering intent and equities)
- State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005) (courts should thoroughly examine writings and only employ rules of construction when definitive meaning is elusive)
- McKinney v. McKinney, 142 Ohio App.3d 604 (2d Dist. 2001) (trial court may clarify ambiguous provision adopted from parties’ agreement)