Vaughn v. Vaughn

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 1805

Syllabus

The domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motions for a continuance to obtain new counsel where it was appellant, and appellant alone, who created the circumstances giving rise to the need for appellant to twice move for a continuance so that he could obtain new counsel after appellant had already received multiple continuances, many of which were due to appellant's own contrived actions or feigned surprise, that ultimately resulted in this generally straightforward divorce taking multiple years rather than mere months, or possibly a year, to complete. The domestic relations court also did not abuse its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction that precluded appellant from introducing any exhibits or calling any witnesses (other than appellant himself) during any part of the three-day final divorce hearing given appellant's willful noncompliance and repeated failure to adhere to the domestic relations court's local rules and apparent refusal to respond to appellee's discovery demands. The domestic relations court further did not err by accepting appellee's expert witness's testimony regarding the median yearly salary appellant would expect to make for purposes of child support calculations given that expert witness testimony was the only evidence that the domestic relations court found credible.