2014 Ohio 3652
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Prenuptial agreement waived spousal support and governed property division before marriage in 1999.
- Wife worked full-time with a county agency; she financed living expenses and contributed approximately $60,000 from premarital home sale.
- Divorce filed in 2009; trial court found prenup valid but that it did not control spousal support; on remand, trial court awarded Wife $3,500/month for 49 months based on alleged lifestyle change.
- This court previously held the trial court erred by not first determining whether the prenup’s spousal support provision was unconscionable at divorce time; remanded for such analysis.
- Court found no changed circumstances to render the spousal support provision unconscionable, aligning with Saari, and reversed the trial court’s spousal support award.
- Judgment reversed; costs taxed to Appellee; special mandate issued to enforce the reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conscionability of spousal support provision at divorce | Vanderbilt argues no changed circumstances to render unconscionable | Wife contends changed circumstances justify unconscionability | Trial court erred; provision not unconscionable; reversed |
| Credit for costs incurred during pendency of case | Husband seeks offset for expenses paid during proceedings | Opposes offset until first issue resolved | Moot because first assignment sustained; no separate ruling on costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St.3d 99 (1984) (unconscionability based on changed circumstances during marriage)
- Saari v. Saari, 2009-Ohio-4940 (2009) (no change in circumstances; enforce prenatal agreement as to spousal support)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 68 Ohio St.3d 464 (1994) (preneuptial validity despite unequal outcomes)