Tavtigian v. Foster
2017 Ohio 4311
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Marital dissolution in 2009 with spousal support of $6,500/month, terminable on death, remarriage, cohabitation, or after 116 months.
- Appellee sought termination of spousal support in 2014 based on appellant’s cohabitation with a nonspouse; appellant sought expense money.
- Hearing developed evidence of a substantial relationship between appellant and Fleming, including shared residences, vacations, gifts, and financial interactions.
- Appellee’s private investigator observed routine mornings departures and evenings together; contemporaneous testimony and circumstantial evidence supported cohabitation.
- Trial magistrate concluded cohabitation existed; trial court adopted, denying expense fees; appellate review upheld the ruling on cohabitation and fee denial.
- This appeal challenges the sufficiency of evidence for cohabitation, application of domestic-violence precedent, and denial of legal fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cohabitation proven by a sustained duration? | Foster argues evidence does not show actual living together for a sustained duration. | Foster shows living together for a sustained period and sharing expenses. | Yes; there was competent and credible evidence of sustained cohabitation. |
| Correctness of applying domestic-violence cohabitation framework? | McGlothan guidance should govern; its application was improper. | Moell framework controls; McGlothan harmless error. | Harmful error not shown; Moell framework applied; any McGlothan error harmless. |
| Abuse of discretion in denying expense of legal fees? | Appellant entitled to fees due to income disparity and discovery costs. | Insufficient evidence of equity; no proof of conduct justifying fee award. | No abuse; court did not err in denying fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moell v. Moell, 98 Ohio App.3d 748 (6th Dist.1994) (cohabitation involves lifestyle and shared finances, not mere living together)
- State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459 (1997) (elements of cohabitation include sharing of financial responsibilities and consortium)
- Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (1993) (trial court independent on objections; fact-finder credibility)
- McGlothan v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 146 (2014) (Supreme Court revisits cohabitation standards in domestic context)
- Laveer v. Laveer, 2013-Ohio-3294 (5th Dist.) (circumstantial evidence permitted to prove shared expenses toward cohabitation)