Longano v. Poeppelman
2017 Ohio 7119
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Longano and Poeppelman married in 2008, divorced in 2014, and share one daughter (b. 2011).
- After divorce they initially had a shared parenting plan; both later sought to be designated residential parent/custodian and filed multiple motions (parenting-time modifications, contempt, custodian designation).
- Following a three-day magistrate hearing, the magistrate named Longano residential parent and terminated spousal support effective March 31, 2015 based on a stipulated cohabitation date of “at least by April 1, 2015.”
- Poeppelman objected, claiming the cohabitation began November 22, 2014 (the date Longano filed notice to relocate), and challenged the magistrate’s parenting-time allocation; the trial court sustained objections, found cohabitation began November 22, 2014, and modified parenting time to give near-equal time to both parents.
- Longano appealed, contesting (1) the trial court’s nearly-equal parenting-time schedule as an abuse of discretion/against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (2) the trial court’s factual finding that cohabitation (and thus termination of spousal support) began November 22, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion or erred as against the manifest weight in adopting a nearly-equal parenting-time schedule | Longano: schedule is improper and not supported by the evidence | Poeppelman: near-equal time appropriate given child’s bond with both parents and problematic parental relationship | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; near-equal time was in child’s best interest given parties’ inability to cooperate and guardian ad litem support |
| Whether the trial court erred in finding cohabitation began Nov. 22, 2014 (affecting termination date for spousal support and child support calculations) | Longano: record lacks evidence of the financial interdependence or marriage-like obligations needed to show cohabitation on Nov. 22, 2014; stipulation indicated cohabitation “at least by April 1, 2015” | Poeppelman: Nov. 22, 2014 was proper start date for cohabitation | Court reversed: record does not support Nov. 22, 2014 as cohabitation start; remanded to apply stipulated date (at least April 1, 2015) |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Taylor, 11 Ohio App.3d 279 (1st Dist. 1983) (cohabitation requires assumptions of obligations functionally equivalent to marriage)