Skip to main content

Smith v. Smith

Citations

  • 2022 Ohio 299

Syllabus

Domestic relations cases abuse of discretion de facto termination date of marriage equitable division of marital property spousal support. We review a trial court's determination in domestic relations cases for an abuse of discretion. Since it is axiomatic that a trial court must have discretion to do what is equitable upon the facts and circumstances of each case, it necessarily follows that a trial court's decision in domestic relations matters should not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision involves more than an error of judgment. Appellant's main argument is that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it determined that the de facto termination date of the marriage was November 23, 2015. Generally, a trial court uses a de facto date for termination of marriage only in cases where the parties have separated have made no attempts to reconcile and have continually maintained separate residences, separate business activities, and separate bank accounts. In this matter, the record indicates that during the five-plus years since the parties' separation on November 23, 2015, they ceased to vacation together, did not socialize together, or attend business events together. The parties made no attempts to reconcile, but instead, bilaterally attempted to terminate the marriage, first through mediation, and then through a collaborative divorce process, both of which were unsuccessful. In addition, the parties began filing separate tax returns in 2015, and continued this practice in the ensuing years, and maintained separate bank accounts. All these actions underscores that the parties lived separate lives after their separation on November 23, 2015. As such, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when it used the date of separation as the de facto termination date of the marriage. Appellant also takes issue with the trial court's division of the marital estate and the amount of and duration of spousal support. Our review indicates that the t

Judges: Groves

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.