Laveer v. Laveer
2013 Ohio 3294
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Married in 1993; two children: Chase (1995) and Brooke (1998) with Brooke having significant medical needs.
- Nov. 6, 2009, appellee filed for divorce; in 2010 magistrate issued decision; no objections filed.
- Sept. 14, 2010, decree: appellee designated residential parent; appellant to pay Chase’s activities; sale of marital home; in lieu of spousal support, listed housing/maintenance expenses totaling $4,234.60; spousal support set at $2,000/month after sale and to terminate upon appellee cohabiting with an unrelated adult male.
- March 25, 2011, appellant moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R.60(B) claiming appellee cohabitated with Marc Carr and other financial issues.
- June 7, 2011, appellee moved for order to show cause for arrearages totaling $2,291.43; August 19, 2011, hearing held; appellant testified about new employment at Allstate and prior earnings; private investigator Kanable testified regarding Carr’s presence at appellee’s residence.
- Nov. 6, 2012, judgment entry: trial court denied Civ.R.60(B) relief and denied modification of spousal support; found no cohabitation; ordered appellant to pay $3,901.73 for insurance, maintenance, repairs, and Chase’s extracurriculars; appellate affirmance follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was financial evidence of cohabitation. | Laveer contends Carr cohabitated with appellee. | LaVeer argues cohabitation existed and supports terminating/modify spousal support. | No substantial financial cohabitation found; no termination of spousal support. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by not terminating spousal support for cohabitation. | Laveer argues cohabitation warrants termination/modification. | LaVeer contends no sustained cohabitation or shared finances. | Court did not abuse discretion; no proven cohabitation. |
| Whether the court abused discretion in not modifying interim real estate obligations. | Laveer seeks modification due to Carr’s presence. | LaVeer asserts no cohabitation and no basis to modify. | No abuse; real estate obligations remained appropriately structured. |
| Whether the award of $3,901.73 to appellee was in error. | Laveer challenges specific reimbursement amounts. | LaVeer admitted some unpaid items but contested others. | Award supported by evidence; not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. Dickerson, 87 Ohio App.3d 848 (6th Dist. 1993) (cohabitation as lifestyle issue; factors include actual living together and shared expenses)
- State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459 (1997) (essential elements of cohabitation: shared responsibilities and consortium)
- Moell v. Moell, 98 Ohio App.3d 748 (6th Dist. 1994) (factors for determining cohabitation; housing, finances, and duration)
- Yarnell v. Yarnell, 2006-Ohio-3929 (5th Dist. 2006) (cohabitation is a factual question for the trial court; credibility review standard)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (2009-Ohio-1222) (modification of spousal support requires substantial change in circumstances)