C.B. v. B.B.
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 2219
Syllabus
Dissolution decree; separation agreement; conflicting terms; ambiguity; controlling; contract; intent of the parties; de novo; evidentiary hearing. Trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to terminate spousal support on a bright-line rule of law that when a provision in a dissolution decree and separation agreement conflict, the separation agreement controls. When provisions conflict, the trial court should review the language of the documents and consider the intent of the parties in deciding which document controls. Because the trial court did not consider the intent of the parties or the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of the conflicting terms, denying appellant's motion without such consideration was in error, and thus, the record is silent for this court to conduct a de novo review of the issue on appeal.
Judges: Keough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.Ohio Supreme Court· 1978-03-29· cited 1,247×
- Kelly v. Medical Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court· 1987-06-24· cited 617×
- Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court· 1974-06-19· cited 340×
- Harris v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court· 1979-06-13· cited 46×
- Morris v. Morris (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-07-19· cited 43×
- In re AdamsOhio Supreme Court· 1989-09-06· cited 42×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.