(A) The court of common pleas including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters. This section is not a determination by the general assembly that such equitable powers and jurisdiction do not exist with respect to any such matter.
(B) For purposes of this section, "domestic relations matters" means both of the following:
(1) Any matter committed to the jurisdiction of the division of domestic relations of common pleas courts under section 2301.03 of the Revised Code, as well as a complaint for child support and allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, including the enforcement and modification of such orders;
(2) Actions and proceedings under Chapters 3105., 3109., 3111., 3113., 3115., 3119., 3121., 3123., 3125., and 3127. of the Revised Code, actions pursuant to section 2151.231 of the Revised Code, all actions removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to section 2151.233 of the Revised Code, and all matters transferred by the juvenile court pursuant to section 2151.235 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117
cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Hockstok v. Hockstok, 2002-Ohio-7208, 98 Ohio St. 3d 238.
Hockstok v. Hockstok, 2002-Ohio-7208, 98 Ohio St. 3d 238. · cites it 2ד{¶14} R.C. 3105.011 gives Ohio common pleas domestic relations courts jurisdiction “appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters,” and R.”
State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 2024-Ohio-135, 236 N.E.3d 194. · cites it 10ד11 therefore fall within the terms of R.C. 3105.011. The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas does not have a separate domestic-relations division, but R.”
Lisboa v. Karner, 855 N.E.2d 136 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2006). · cites it 5ד” This section limits the jurisdiction of the domestic relations division to the determination of domestic relations matters.”
Bolinger v. Bolinger, 551 N.E.2d 157 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 3דR.C. 3105.011 provides as follows: “The court of common pleas including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
Haag v. Cuyahoga Cnty., 619 F. Supp. 262 (N.D. Ohio 1985). · cites it 4דOhio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.011 . The court may also award custody of minor children ( Ohio Rev.”
Akroyd v. Akroyd, 2024-Ohio-4631, 253 N.E.3d 824. · cites it 15דThe defendant directs this Court to no other authority purporting to limit or prevent the use of equitable powers, pursuant to R.C. § 3105.011, in this fashion. Defendant’s arguments are without merit because of the Magistrate’s inherent equitable powers and the unique…”
Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 2019-Ohio-2035, 136 N.E.3d 966. · cites it 2דThe section appears to reiterate the general grant of “full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters” conferred on the courts of common pleas by R.C. 3105.011. The effect of that grant has been held “to permit the court…”
Ostanek v. Ostanek (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-2319, 181 N.E.3d 1162. “In addition, R.C. 3105.011(A) provides that “[t]he court of common pleas including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
Mullinix v. Mullinix, 2023-Ohio-1053, 214 N.E.3d 601. · cites it 2דAfter noting its statutory jurisdiction over divorce actions generally, pursuant to R.C. 3105.011, the court stated, “According to the record, affidavits filed, admission from 1She likewise contended that venue was improper in Franklin County under Civ.”
Pyle v. Pyle, 463 N.E.2d 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1983). “See R.C. 3105.011. The complaint was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the general division of the trial court and the court properly overruled defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
Masitto v. Masitto, 488 N.E.2d 857 (Ohio 1986). “301 ], paragraph one of the syllabus, the common pleas court, division of domestic relations, is given general jurisdiction of all domestic matters by R.C. 3105.011. Since appellee’s motion before the domestic court was for change of custody, such court had general subject…”
Salameh v. Doumet, 2019-Ohio-5391, 151 N.E.3d 83. · cites it 2ד{¶37} R.C. 3105.011 provides: The court of common pleas including the divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
Ostanek v. Ostanek (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-2319, 181 N.E.3d 1162. “In addition, R.C. 3105.011(A) provides that “[t]he court of common pleas including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
Mullinix v. Mullinix, 2023-Ohio-1053, 214 N.E.3d 601. “After noting its statutory jurisdiction over divorce actions generally, pursuant to R.C. 3105.011, the court stated, “According to the record, affidavits filed, admission from 1She likewise contended that venue was improper in Franklin County under Civ.”
State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 2024-Ohio-135, 236 N.E.3d 194. “11 therefore fall within the terms of R.C. 3105.011. The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas does not have a separate domestic-relations division, but R.”
Akroyd v. Akroyd, 2024-Ohio-4631, 253 N.E.3d 824. “The defendant directs this Court to no other authority purporting to limit or prevent the use of equitable powers, pursuant to R.C. § 3105.011, in this fashion. Defendant’s arguments are without merit because of the Magistrate’s inherent equitable powers and the unique…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.