ohio spousal support statute

• Zahn v. Zahn, (Ohio 2003)

child support, spousal support, abuse of discretion, retroactivity, remedial statute, R.C. 3119.022, change in circumstances, Sup.R. 40(A)

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1: Privileges and immunities of citizenchip, due process and equal protection

... Cases , the Court evaluated a Louisiana statute which conferred a monopoly upon a single corporati.... . [it was] supported by the facts." . Seven years later, however, a rad..., however, abruptly rejected by the Court in Ohio Valley Co. v. Ben Avon Borough as being no longer... newly found right, such as by requiring spousal or parental consent to obtain an abortion. The Co...

• Constitution of the United States (Annotated)

• Dunham v. Dunham, (Ohio 2007)

Trial court did not err in finding certain assets to be marital property because husband was unable to trace assets he claimed were separate property. Trial court did not err in using coverture fraction to determine marital portion of husband's retirement plan in the absence of evidence as to how husband's company calculated his retirement benefits. Trial court did not err in awarding indefinite spousal support in the amount of $7,250 per month as the record demonstrates that the trial court thoroughly reviewed the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). As matter was pending when R.C. 3105.73 became effective, trial court was instructed to reconsider award of attorney fees under new statute.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Servs. v. Blumer, 534 U.S. 473 (2002)

...The MCCA's "spousal impoverishment" provisions responded to this probllem by including in the Medicaid statute requirements with which States must comply in allo..., the MCCA's design offers affirmative support for the income-first method. Subsection (b)(1) has... Bruce Vignery, and Michael Schuster; for the Ohio State Bar Association et al. by William J. Brown...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Fordyce v. Fordyce, (Ohio 2011)

Divorce; necessity of designating property as marital or separate pursuant to R.C. 3105.171(B); spousal support; failure to consider R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) factors.

... part by the spousal-support statute, R.C. 3105.18.  See Waller v. Waller, 163 Ohio...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

... interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of subst... the assessment of the Pennsylvania statute:. (a) To protect the central right recognized by R... requirements, except that relating to spousal notice, are constitutional. The reporting provisio...See, e. g., Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U. S...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Heller v. Heller, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court erred either in failing to follow the law of the case set in the prior two appeals in this case on the issue of spousal support, or in establishing a spousal support award that consumed 75 percent of husband's income.

... St.3d 93, 95. Nor does any  statute "prevent[] a court from ordering a spousal supp...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• In re Estate of Mason, 109 Ohio St.3d 532 (2006)

Execution of judgments — Dormancy and revivor statutes — R.C. 2329.07 and 2325.15 — Once installment support order is reduced to lump-sum judgment, dormancy and revivor statues apply — Legatees’ interest in estate is equitable and therefore attachable only by creditor’s bill until probate court makes an order of distribution or fiduciary has definite amount ready to distribute — Once probate court has made an order of distribution or a definite amount is ready to distribute, legatee’s interest becomes legal interest subject to garnishment.

... on two postdivorce lump-sum judgments for spousal support arrearages she had obtained against Richar...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Davis v. Davis, (Ohio 2012)

Affirming trial court’s modification of an award of spousal support, which award was based upon enforcement of an INS Form I-864, Affidavit of Support.

..., concluding that the immigration statutes and  related regulations clearly gave appellant ...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Sweeney v. Sweeney, (Ohio 2006)

Trial court's decision to reject magistrate's decision, and to deny husband's motion to modify spousal support, was supported by competent, credible evidence, where husband failed to establish reduction in income was involuntary; award of attorney's fees governed by version of statute in effect at time of decision.

• Ohio Supreme Court