Skip to main content
· 7/8/2022

Menkhaus v. Menkhaus

Citations

  • 2022 Ohio 2369

Syllabus

DIVORCE – PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS – CONTRACTS – INTERPRETATION – ASSET DISCLOSURE – R.C. 3105.18(C) – SPOUSAL SUPPORT – UNCONSCIONABILITY – CIV.R. 26(C) – PROTECTIVE ORDER – PROPERTY CHARACTERIZATION – R.C. 2323.51 – ATTORNEY FEES: The trial court did not err in finding that husband's business interests were his separate property under the parties' prenuptial agreement where the agreement provided that any property referred to in the attached Schedule B was husband's separate property, husband's only business in existence at the time of the marriage was referred to in the Schedule B, and the agreement additionally provided that all property acquired by husband after the marriage or in exchange for his separate property would be his separate property. The trial court did not err in finding that wife failed to meet her burden to show that enforcement of the spousal-support provision contained in the parties' prenuptial agreement would be unconscionable where the court expressly considered the required factors under R.C. 3105.18(C) and made findings which were supported by the record, and where such findings did not show that wife would suffer any harm, hardship, or disadvantage as a result of enforcement of the provision as the parties had always maintained separate finances, did not create a marital standard of living, were not dependent on each other financially during the marriage, and could each maintain income consistent with the lifestyle they had been independently living. The trial court did not err in granting husband's motion for a protective order under Civ.R. 26(C), which allows a trial court to limit the scope of discovery to that which is proportional to the needs of the case to prevent undue burden or expense, where husband asserted that wife's \wide-ranging\ discovery request would be burdensome and time-consuming, the trial court ordered the parties to turn over any information it found to be relevant to the precise issues before it and did not grant th

Judges: Zayas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.