Law Offices of Anthony W. Greco | Divorce, Child Support and Family Law

Father has trial Court reversed after Court gave mother custody

Tony — Tue, 15 May 2012 13:57:00 +0000

Two months after order modifying allocation of parental rights and responsibilities was issued, mother moved to terminate shared parenting agreement. The Court of Common Pleas modified prior Order, and father appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial Court stating, “Before a trial court may modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, the court must make a threshhold determination that a change in circumstances has occurred.” The court also stated that modification of a prior decree cannot happen, “Unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child’s residential parent, or either of the parent’s which are subject to a shared parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.” The Court also found that just because there is 50-50 parenting time allocation, that does not mean there is a shared parenting plan. Sejka v. Sejka, 195 Ohio App.3d 335.

16 Year Marriage Resulted in Alimony Until Death, Wife’s Remarriage or Cohabitation

Tony — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:42:22 +0000

Husband (then age 53) and Wife (then age 42) get married in 1993. It is the 2nd marriage for Husband and 3rd marriage for Wife. At the time of marriage, husband has been a teacher for 29 years. There are no minor children of marriage. Husband retires in 2004 and files for divorce in 2007, and at the time of the divorce Husband is receiving a pension in the net amount of $ 3,187.36. The Fairfiled County Trial Court Ordered Husband to pay spousal support (alimony) to Wife in the amount of $ 1,250. per month, indefinately ( which is defined as, termination only upon death, remarriage or cohabitation with unrelated adult male). The Trial Court also Orders Husband to pay Wife credit card that she used after the divorce was filed. The 5th District Court of Appeals upheld that decision. See the full case at, Howcroft v. Howcroft, 192 Ohio App.3d 307.

Ex-Wife’s Inheritance Not Basis For Termination of Spousal Support

Tony — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:07:28 +0000

January 10, 2011. Timberlake v. Timberlake. Marion County, Ohio. Ex-Husband asked the Court to terminate his spousal support after wife received an inheritence. The Marion County Court of Common Pleas denied husband’s request to terminate because the Trial Court stated that the parties contemplated the inheritence at the time of the divorce and thus, it was not unforeseeable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision and stated that, “A trial court will have jurisdiction to modify a prior order of spousal support only if the decree of the court expressly reserved jurisdiction to make the modification and if the court finds that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred and that the change had not been contemplated at the time of the original decree.

To view the full case, click here.

Husband Wins Termination of Spousal Support in Fairfield County

Tony — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:08:03 +0000

August 22, 2011. Success on Appeal. Termination of Husband’s Spousal Support because of Ex-Wife’s Cohabitation.

The Law Office of Anthony W. Greco successfully represented its Client in overturning a Fairfiled County Trial Court’s ruling refusing to terminate a husband’s spousal support based upon Wife’s cohabitation. Our Client specifically challenged the Fairfield County Trial Court’s Order finding that Wife was not cohabitating with her boyfriend. The Court of Appeals referenced the Supreme Court of Ohio’s ruling which set forth two primary factors to consider in determining cohabitation: “Having considered the above definitions of ‘cohabitant’ and ‘family or household member,’ we conclude that the essential elements of ‘cohabitation’ are (1) sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and (2) consortium. R.C. 2919.25(E)(2) and related statutes. The Court of Appeals stated that “Many factors may be considered in deciding whether cohabitation exists in a particular set of facts. We previously addressed the issue of “cohabitation” as an issue of lifestyle, not a housing arrangement. Further, when considering the evidence, the trial court should look to three principal factors. These factors are “(1) an actual living together; (2) of a sustained duration; and (3) with shared expenses with respect to financing and day-today incidental expenses.” The Court of Appeals, Fifth District, noted that both Ex-Wife and her boyfriend stated that boyfriend provided no support for Ex-Wife or her residence. Although boyfriend admitted to using appellee’s utilities and cable, he insisted that he did not pay for anything and was not an extra burden on the utilities. At one point, boyfriend took the absurd position that he did not even use toilet paper. Proof of shared expenses does not have to be by direct evidence alone, but can be established by circumstantial evidence.

In this case, the direct evidence of the unexplained funds leads to the logical inference that Ex-Wife is receiving funds from her boyfriend. The Court went on to state, either we accept boyfriend’s position that he is a visitor at Ex-Wife’s residence, living off the income of a woman who makes substantially less than him, or we make the inference that these are two intelligent individuals who understand the cohabitation issue (boyfriend also pays spousal support) who are trying to delude the trial court. Either boyfriend is a “moocher” or he is paying his way. Both agree if they were married, the financial issues would be the same save health benefits. The Court of Appeals then concluded that the third factor in determining cohabitation, shared expenses with respect to financing and day-to-day incidental expenses, has been minimally satisfied and the trial court erred in not finding cohabitation. The Court of Appeals then Reversed Fairfienld County Court’s ruling, terminated Husband’s spousal support, and Remanded the matter back to the trial court for a determination as to when cohabitation first started, so the termination could be applied retroactively.

To see the full case, click the link here.

Mother Awarded $40,000 for Attorney’s Fees in Union County Custody Case

Tony — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:27:03 +0000

June 13, 2011. Success on Appeal.

The Law Office of Anthony W. Greco successfully represented its Client in obtaining a Court Order in the Union County Court for the reimbursement of the Client’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $40,000.00. Not only was our Client successful in defeating the Father’s request for custody, but the Mother was successful in defeating Father’s request for additional parenting time. The Union County Trial Court found that there was no change in circumstances requiring any change in custody of Mother, nor for the visitation of Father. Further, the trial court ruled that the Mother’s attorney’s fee’s award was justified, ”based upon the scope, sophistication and duration of the litigation initiated by Father.” The Union County Trial Court’s ruling was then upheld by the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate Court District.

For the full case opinion, click here for link. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/3/2011/2011-ohio-2847.pdf

Delaware County reviewing 700 divorces from last 5 yrs.

Tony — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:13:32 +0000

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 04:40 PM

By Randy Ludlow

The Columbus Dispatch

Delaware County Common Pleas Court Judge Everett H. Krueger is likely to soon grow weary of signing his name.

Court workers are scouring divorce and dissolution cases from the past five years to locate up to 700 where Krueger did not sign the final paperwork.

Krueger had allowed a magistrate to sign his name to agreed entries on dissolutions and divorces in the interest of expediting cases for former couples. But, an appeals court has ruled that doesn’t count. A judge must sign the entries.

“No divorces are invalid,” Krueger said today. “Just to be safe, I’m going through all the cases and signing all the agreed entries.”

The judge said he allowed magistrates to sign off on cases when the parties came to court with final agreements on property settlements and child custody and support “so they didn’t have to wait around for me to review anything.”

However, the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled on May 26 that court rules require judges to personally sign court judgments and that such authority cannot be delegated to magistrates.

The case was appealed after Krueger refused last year to reopen a 2005 divorce case on grounds that it was void because he did not personally sign the entry.

A magistrate, and then Krueger, ruled that since neither the ex-husband nor ex-wife had previously contested the validity of the magistrate’s signature while going on to marry others, they had waived their right to contest the final entry.

The appeals court ordered the case reopened to allow one of the parties in the divorce to present new arguments on matters before the divorce is finally — and officially – closed with Krueger’s signature.

“The (appellate) ruling did not void any other judgments,” Krueger said. “I’m just looking to put my original signature on them.”

The lawyers involved in the divorce appeal did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Spousal Support (Alimony) Modification

Tony — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:07:22 +0000

To modify or change a spousal support Order, the party requesting the change must first prove that the Court has “continuing jurisdiction”. Second, the party requesting the change must then prove with evidence that there has been a substantial change in circumstances which were not anticipated at the time of the Divorce. Third, the party requesting the change must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the existing spousal support Order is no longer appropriate and reasonable. Decided November 4, 2010 in Burkart v. Burkart, 191 Ohio App.3d 169.

Contract between Boyfriend and Girlfriend to Buy House

Tony — Thu, 26 May 2011 14:32:22 +0000

The case involved a girlfriend and boyfriend who got engaged, an then entered into a contract to be equal partners in a house, which had been originally owned 100 % by girlfriend. Boyfriend paid $310,000.00 to pay off the girlfriend’s mortgage in exchange for receiving a Quit Claim Deed from girlfriend, making boyfriend 100% owner of said house. Boyfriend and girlfriend then broke up before the marriage, and boyfriend kept the house. Boyfriend and girlfriend later reconciled and moved back in together after boyfriend agreed to give girlfriend 50% of the house. They then broke up again and girlfriend sued for her half of the house. The Court of Appeals ruled that even though girlfriend did not provide any money, personal property, or anything tangible to boyfriend in exchange for 50% of the house, girlfriend was entitled to 50% of the house because girlfriend agreed to provide boyfriend companionship and support for boyfriend’s needs, as well as her foregoing any other romantic possibilities. See, Williams v. Williams, 190 Ohio App.3d 815, 210-Ohio-4664. September 30, 2010.

Purpose of Shared Parenting

Tony — Sun, 01 May 2011 00:37:16 +0000

In the case of Livermore v. Livermore, the trial court noted that:

The purpose of a shared parenting plan is to provide the parties the necessary flexibility within the court’s order to act in concert in the best interests of their children. As all persons who have raised or are raising children know, matters will arise in the course of their development that cannot necessarily be predicted at the time of divorce. These issues may be educational, emotional, psychological or otherwise. Shared parenting allows divorced parents the ability to cooperate with each other to make parenting decisions as unforeseen needs arise.