Husband motion in Ohio

2019Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶83} We find no abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny Husband’s motion for entry into the marital home to inspect the property and retrieve business items.

2019Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶83} We find no abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny Husband’s motion for entry into the marital home to inspect the property and retrieve business items.

2026Wightman v. Darty, 2023-Ohio-3748, ¶ 12, fn. 3 (12th Dist.).

2026Stapleton v. Stapleton, 2022-Ohio-3018, ¶ 27 (1st Dist.).

2026Fuller v. Mengel, 2003-Ohio-6448, ¶ 10 , quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654 (10th Dist. 2001). {¶11} Although the deficiencies in Husband’s brief permit this court to dismiss Husband’s appeal, we find that Husband has provided enough information to allow us to discern the assignments of error that he intends to present, and, “in the interests of justice and finality, we elect to review the appeal.” Foster v. Stuff, 2025-Ohio-5584, ¶ 14 (5th Dist.).

2026Fuller v. Mengel, 2003-Ohio-6448, ¶ 10 , quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654 (10th Dist. 2001). {¶11} Although the deficiencies in Husband’s brief permit this court to dismiss Husband’s appeal, we find that Husband has provided enough information to allow us to discern the assignments of error that he intends to present, and, “in the interests of justice and finality, we elect to review the appeal.” Foster v. Stuff, 2025-Ohio-5584, ¶ 14 (5th Dist.).

2026Hawkins v. Hawkins, 2012-Ohio-2795, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.). {¶ 18} According to Husband's brief, he vacated the residence for an unspecified period during the winter months of 2022.

2025See also In re L.A., 2024-Ohio-3107, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.) (“[A]ttachments to the appellate brief that were not presented to the trial court are not part of the record and cannot be considered by this court.”).9 Wife opposed Husband’s motion to continue, filing a brief on June 28, 2023.

2025The trial court found that the errors alleged by Husband were now moot because those alleged errors had been addressed by the trial court when it acted on Husband’s motion to terminate spousal support. {¶78} We presume that the trial court overruled Husband’s objection regarding spousal support even if it failed to set forth and address each part of the objection in its judgment entry. “[I]t is presumed that the trial court, sub silentio, overruled the objections when it proceeded to enter judgment disposing of the objections.” Phillips v. Phillips, 2014-Ohio-5439, ¶ 28 (5th Dist.).

2025The trial court found that the errors alleged by Husband were now moot because those alleged errors had been addressed by the trial court when it acted on Husband’s motion to terminate spousal support. {¶78} We presume that the trial court overruled Husband’s objection regarding spousal support even if it failed to set forth and address each part of the objection in its judgment entry. “[I]t is presumed that the trial court, sub silentio, overruled the objections when it proceeded to enter judgment disposing of the objections.” Phillips v. Phillips, 2014-Ohio-5439, ¶ 28 (5th Dist.).

2025See, e.g., Huffman v. Pioneer Basement Water Proofing Co., Inc., 2008-Ohio-7032, ¶ 42 (5th Dist.) (trial court’s decision to exclude expert witness’s affidavit was not arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable when the expert was not timely disclosed and the parties did not seek an extension of the deadline). {¶35} Despite Husband’s claim that the importance of his expert’s testimony could not be overstated, Husband was not diligent in securing his expert and complying with the trial court’s case-management orders and local rule for providing the expert report to the court and the opposing pa

2024We address the findings and additional provisions contained in the January 31, 2024 judgment in our discussion of Husband’s assigned errors. {¶12} To facilitate our discussion, we first address Husband’s fourth assigned error, in which he argues: {¶13} “The trial court erred in its decision modifying spousal support without considering the relative incomes of the parties at the time of the post decree litigation in comparison to at the time of the original award of support.” 4 Case No. 2024-P-0013 {¶14} “A trial court’s decision on a motion to modify spousal support is reviewed for an abuse of

2024We address the findings and additional provisions contained in the January 31, 2024 judgment in our discussion of Husband’s assigned errors. {¶12} To facilitate our discussion, we first address Husband’s fourth assigned error, in which he argues: {¶13} “The trial court erred in its decision modifying spousal support without considering the relative incomes of the parties at the time of the post decree litigation in comparison to at the time of the original award of support.” 4 Case No. 2024-P-0013 {¶14} “A trial court’s decision on a motion to modify spousal support is reviewed for an abuse of

2024We address the findings and additional provisions contained in the January 31, 2024 judgment in our discussion of Husband’s assigned errors. {¶12} To facilitate our discussion, we first address Husband’s fourth assigned error, in which he argues: {¶13} “The trial court erred in its decision modifying spousal support without considering the relative incomes of the parties at the time of the post decree litigation in comparison to at the time of the original award of support.” 4 Case No. 2024-P-0013 {¶14} “A trial court’s decision on a motion to modify spousal support is reviewed for an abuse of

2024We address the findings and additional provisions contained in the January 31, 2024 judgment in our discussion of Husband’s assigned errors. {¶12} To facilitate our discussion, we first address Husband’s fourth assigned error, in which he argues: {¶13} “The trial court erred in its decision modifying spousal support without considering the relative incomes of the parties at the time of the post decree litigation in comparison to at the time of the original award of support.” 4 Case No. 2024-P-0013 {¶14} “A trial court’s decision on a motion to modify spousal support is reviewed for an abuse of

2024Brown Nos. -5- Butler CA2023-07-079 CA2017-12-016 and CA2017-12-017, 2018-Ohio-4933, ¶ 62 (appellant waived all but plain error on appeal where he did not object to a magistrate's decision). {¶ 13} However, even if Husband had properly raised the issue in his objection to the magistrate's decision, we would still find no error, plain or otherwise, in the domestic relation court's decision to dismiss Husband's motion to modify spousal support.

2024We address the findings and additional provisions contained in the January 31, 2024 judgment in our discussion of Husband’s assigned errors. {¶12} To facilitate our discussion, we first address Husband’s fourth assigned error, in which he argues: {¶13} “The trial court erred in its decision modifying spousal support without considering the relative incomes of the parties at the time of the post decree litigation in comparison to at the time of the original award of support.” 4 Case No. 2024-P-0013 {¶14} “A trial court’s decision on a motion to modify spousal support is reviewed for an abuse of

2024We address the findings and additional provisions contained in the January 31, 2024 judgment in our discussion of Husband’s assigned errors. {¶12} To facilitate our discussion, we first address Husband’s fourth assigned error, in which he argues: {¶13} “The trial court erred in its decision modifying spousal support without considering the relative incomes of the parties at the time of the post decree litigation in comparison to at the time of the original award of support.” 4 Case No. 2024-P-0013 {¶14} “A trial court’s decision on a motion to modify spousal support is reviewed for an abuse of

2023See Minkin at ¶ 14 (Civ.R. 60(B) not applicable where the defendant argued that the parties had reached a settlement before the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, thereby relying on alleged events that occurred prior to the judgment as a basis to vacate the judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(4)).