Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3105 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18 (2026)

Awarding spousal support - modification of spousal support

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 22, 2013
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 461 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) As used in this section, "spousal support" means any payment or payments to be made to a spouse or former spouse, or to a third party for the benefit of a spouse or a former spouse, that is both for sustenance and for support of the spouse or former spouse. "Spousal support" does not include any payment made to a spouse or former spouse, or to a third party for the benefit of a spouse or former spouse, that is made as part of a division or distribution of property or a distributive award under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code.

(B) In divorce and legal separation proceedings, upon the request of either party and after the court determines the division or disbursement of property under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code, the court of common pleas may award reasonable spousal support to either party. During the pendency of any divorce, or legal separation proceeding, the court may award reasonable temporary spousal support to either party.

An award of spousal support may be allowed in real or personal property, or both, or by decreeing a sum of money, payable either in gross or by installments, from future income or otherwise, as the court considers equitable.

Any award of spousal support made under this section shall terminate upon the death of either party, unless the order containing the award expressly provides otherwise.

(C)(1) In determining whether spousal support is appropriate and reasonable, and in determining the nature, amount, and terms of payment, and duration of spousal support, which is payable either in gross or in installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors:

(a) The income of the parties, from all sources, including, but not limited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code;

(b) The relative earning abilities of the parties;

(c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties;

(d) The retirement benefits of the parties;

(e) The duration of the marriage;

(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home;

(g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage;

(h) The relative extent of education of the parties;

(i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties;

(j) The contribution of each party to the education, training, or earning ability of the other party, including, but not limited to, any party's contribution to the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party;

(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will be qualified to obtain appropriate employment, provided the education, training, or job experience, and employment is, in fact, sought;

(l) The tax consequences, for each party, of an award of spousal support;

(m) The lost income production capacity of either party that resulted from that party's marital responsibilities;

(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable.

(2) In determining whether spousal support is reasonable and in determining the amount and terms of payment of spousal support, each party shall be considered to have contributed equally to the production of marital income.

(D) In an action brought solely for an order for legal separation under section 3105.17 of the Revised Code, any continuing order for periodic payments of money entered pursuant to this section is subject to further order of the court upon changed circumstances of either party.

(E) If a continuing order for periodic payments of money as alimony is entered in a divorce or dissolution of marriage action that is determined on or after May 2, 1986, and before January 1, 1991, or if a continuing order for periodic payments of money as spousal support is entered in a divorce or dissolution of marriage action that is determined on or after January 1, 1991, the court that enters the decree of divorce or dissolution of marriage does not have jurisdiction to modify the amount or terms of the alimony or spousal support unless the court determines that the circumstances of either party have changed and unless one of the following applies:

(1) In the case of a divorce, the decree or a separation agreement of the parties to the divorce that is incorporated into the decree contains a provision specifically authorizing the court to modify the amount or terms of alimony or spousal support.

(2) In the case of a dissolution of marriage, the separation agreement that is approved by the court and incorporated into the decree contains a provision specifically authorizing the court to modify the amount or terms of alimony or spousal support.

(F)(1) For purposes of divisions (D) and (E) of this section and subject to division (F)(2) of this section, a change in the circumstances of a party includes, but is not limited to, any increase or involuntary decrease in the party's wages, salary, bonuses, living expenses, or medical expenses, or other changed circumstances so long as both of the following apply:

(a) The change in circumstances is substantial and makes the existing award no longer reasonable and appropriate.

(b) The change in circumstances was not taken into account by the parties or the court as a basis for the existing award when it was established or last modified, whether or not the change in circumstances was forseeable.

(2) In determining whether to modify an existing order for spousal support, the court shall consider any purpose expressed in the initial order or award and enforce any voluntary agreement of the parties. Absent an agreement of the parties, the court shall not modify the continuing jurisdiction of the court as contained in the original decree.

(G) If any person required to pay alimony under an order made or modified by a court on or after December 1, 1986, and before January 1, 1991, or any person required to pay spousal support under an order made or modified by a court on or after January 1, 1991, is found in contempt of court for failure to make alimony or spousal support payments under the order, the court that makes the finding, in addition to any other penalty or remedy imposed, shall assess all court costs arising out of the contempt proceeding against the person and shall require the person to pay any reasonable attorney's fees of any adverse party, as determined by the court, that arose in relation to the act of contempt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,014 cases (193 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Morris v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5002 (Ohio 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morris v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5002 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 72× “{¶ 31} In Crouser, this court held that R.C. 3105.18 is the substantive law that controls whether a trial court has authority to modify an award of spousal support.”
Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 2009 Ohio 1222 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 23× “21773, 2004-Ohio-3844 , 2004 WL 1620723 , relying on amendments to R.C. 3105.18, held that trial courts have jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support based on “any” change in circumstances rather than a substantial change.”
Organ v. Organ, 2014 Ohio 3474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 38× “It reasoned that, if sustenance means to sustain, the upper limit of spousal support that can be awarded in a case is the amount that is needed to allow the recipient spouse to maintain the marital standard of living.”
Collins v. Collins, 2011 Ohio 2087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 21× “Unlike the child support statute, there is no language in R.C. 3105.18 that directs the trial court to “impute” income.”
Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020 Ohio 4881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 23× “Legal Standard {¶68} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.”
Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023 Ohio 169 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 16× “{¶ 30} The trial court cannot consider any single R.C. 3105.18(C) factor in isolation. Kaechele at paragraph one of the syllabus.”
Falah v. Falah, 2017 Ohio 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 19× “” R.C. 3105.18(B). Absent a challenge to a particular factual finding of the trial court, this Court “‘reviews a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Bowen v. Bowen, 725 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 13× “While need was previously considered under the old statutory scheme, this court has made clear “that under R.C. 3105.18, as modified in April 1991, ‘need’ is no longer the basis for a spousal support award.”
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 16× “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
Kaechele v. Kaechele, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 8× “I In the case sub judice, the court of *95 appeals held that R.C. 3105.18 1 “* * * mandates consideration of the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage with the apparent intent to have both parties maintain the standard of living established during the…”
Buckles v. Buckles, 546 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 14× “2 This especially is required with regard to property expressly referred to in R.C. 3105.18, whether or not that property is specifically set aside to be divided.”
Oatey v. Oatey, 614 N.E.2d 1054 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 19× “” Defendant’s brief in opposition argues the “Order” for interim attorney fees was entered pursuant to R.C. 3105.18(H) and constitutes a final appealable order affecting a “substantial right” made in a “special proceeding” within the scope of R.”
Show all 1,014 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(0X1) — 1 case
Cassavore v. Cassavore, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 232 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(A) — 62 cases
Palazzo v. Palazzo, 2016 Ohio 3041 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Organ v. Organ, 2014 Ohio 3474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “It reasoned that, if sustenance means to sustain, the upper limit of spousal support that can be awarded in a case is the amount that is needed to allow the recipient spouse to maintain the marital standard of living.”
McCoy v. McCoy, 632 N.E.2d 1358 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).
Frost v. Frost, 618 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Corwin v. Corwin, 2013 Ohio 3996 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(A)(7) — 1 case
Josselson v. Josselson, 557 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B) — 254 cases
Thomasson v. Thomasson (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2417 (Ohio 2018).
Waller v. Waller, 837 N.E.2d 843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
Kaechele v. Kaechele, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (Ohio 1988). “I In the case sub judice, the court of *95 appeals held that R.C. 3105.18 1 “* * * mandates consideration of the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage with the apparent intent to have both parties maintain the standard of living established during the…”
Buckles v. Buckles, 546 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “2 This especially is required with regard to property expressly referred to in R.C. 3105.18, whether or not that property is specifically set aside to be divided.”
Theriot v. Hetrick, 2020 Ohio 6995 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(1) — 7 cases
Bingham v. Bingham, 459 N.E.2d 231 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).
Leighner v. Leighner, 515 N.E.2d 625 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986).
Josselson v. Josselson, 557 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
Ranz v. Ranz, 554 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
Blair v. Blair, 463 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(10) — 3 cases
Kahn v. Kahn, 536 N.E.2d 678 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).
Sanzenbacher v. Sanzenbacher, 444 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981).
Carpenter v. Carpenter, 573 N.E.2d 698 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(11) — 1 case
Gross v. Gross, 464 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 1984).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(2) — 4 cases
Babka v. Babka, 615 N.E.2d 247 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Mottice v. Mottice, 693 N.E.2d 1179 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Haninger v. Haninger, 456 N.E.2d 1228 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982).
Reichert v. Reichert, 491 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(3) — 8 cases
Bisker v. Bisker, 635 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1994).
Lemon v. Lemon, 537 N.E.2d 246 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
Mottice v. Mottice, 693 N.E.2d 1179 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Stevens v. Stevens, 492 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1986).
Blair v. Blair, 463 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(4) — 5 cases
Kaechele v. Kaechele, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (Ohio 1988). “I In the case sub judice, the court of *95 appeals held that R.C. 3105.18 1 “* * * mandates consideration of the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage with the apparent intent to have both parties maintain the standard of living established during the…”
Stevens v. Stevens, 492 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1986).
Nori v. Nori, 568 N.E.2d 730 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
Gore v. Gore, 499 N.E.2d 1281 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
Edwards v. Edwards, 2019 Ohio 5413 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(6) — 2 cases
Goode v. Goode, 590 N.E.2d 439 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
Haninger v. Haninger, 456 N.E.2d 1228 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(7) — 4 cases
Stevens v. Stevens, 492 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1986).
Kahn v. Kahn, 536 N.E.2d 678 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).
Haninger v. Haninger, 456 N.E.2d 1228 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982).
Gross v. Gross, 582 N.E.2d 1144 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(B)(9) — 2 cases
Josselson v. Josselson, 557 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
Pacht v. Jadd, 469 N.E.2d 918 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(BX1) — 1 case
Smith v. Smith, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(BX7) — 1 case
Gross v. Gross, 582 N.E.2d 1144 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C) — 236 cases
Norbut v. Norbut (In Re Norbut), 387 B.R. 199 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008).
Hunter v. Troutman, 2025 Ohio 366 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 2017 Ohio 7886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Organ v. Organ, 2014 Ohio 3474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “It reasoned that, if sustenance means to sustain, the upper limit of spousal support that can be awarded in a case is the amount that is needed to allow the recipient spouse to maintain the marital standard of living.”
Dach v. Homewood, 2015 Ohio 4191 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1) — 430 cases
Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023 Ohio 169 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶ 30} The trial court cannot consider any single R.C. 3105.18(C) factor in isolation. Kaechele at paragraph one of the syllabus.”
Hunley v. Hunley, 2020 Ohio 5053 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Walpole v. Walpole, 2013 Ohio 3529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Kokoski v. Kokoski, 2013 Ohio 3567 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Organ v. Organ, 2014 Ohio 3474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “It reasoned that, if sustenance means to sustain, the upper limit of spousal support that can be awarded in a case is the amount that is needed to allow the recipient spouse to maintain the marital standard of living.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(A) — 1 case
Kachmar v. Kachmar, 2010 Ohio 1311 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(L) — 1 case
Lam v. Lam, 2012 Ohio 4885 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(Z) — 1 case
Frost v. Frost, 618 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(a) — 208 cases
Mahoney v. Mahoney, 2017 Ohio 7917 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Reveal v. Reveal, 798 N.E.2d 1132 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Hunley v. Hunley, 2020 Ohio 5053 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Organ v. Organ, 2014 Ohio 3474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “It reasoned that, if sustenance means to sustain, the upper limit of spousal support that can be awarded in a case is the amount that is needed to allow the recipient spouse to maintain the marital standard of living.”
Kim v. Kim, 2020 Ohio 22 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(b) — 39 cases
Kokoski v. Kokoski, 2013 Ohio 3567 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Spillane v. Spillane, 2020 Ohio 5052 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Berthelot v. Berthelot, 796 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
Walpole v. Walpole, 2013 Ohio 3529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(c) — 25 cases
Torres Friedenberg v. Friedenberg (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3345 (Ohio 2020).
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
Babka v. Babka, 615 N.E.2d 247 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Mahoney v. Mahoney, 2017 Ohio 7917 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Gentile v. Gentile, 2013 Ohio 1338 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(d) — 17 cases
Chattree v. Chattree, 2014 Ohio 489 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Gentile v. Gentile, 2013 Ohio 1338 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Falah v. Falah, 2017 Ohio 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “” R.C. 3105.18(B). Absent a challenge to a particular factual finding of the trial court, this Court “‘reviews a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020 Ohio 4881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Legal Standard {¶68} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.”
Heimann v. Heimann, 2022 Ohio 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(e) — 16 cases
La Spisa v. La Spisa, 2023 Ohio 3467 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020 Ohio 4881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Legal Standard {¶68} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.”
Heimann v. Heimann, 2022 Ohio 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Verma v. Verma, 903 N.E.2d 343 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
Ernsberger v. Ernsberger, 2014 Ohio 4470 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(e)(f) — 1 case
Parsons v. Parsons, 2025 Ohio 2511 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(f) — 8 cases
Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020 Ohio 4881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Legal Standard {¶68} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.”
Heimann v. Heimann, 2022 Ohio 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Bowen v. Thomas, 656 N.E.2d 1328 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
Ernsberger v. Ernsberger, 2014 Ohio 4470 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Thomasson v. Thomasson, 2020 Ohio 3890 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(g) — 23 cases
Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020 Ohio 4881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Legal Standard {¶68} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.”
Mahoney v. Mahoney, 2017 Ohio 7917 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
Washek v. Washek, 2019 Ohio 1504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Falah v. Falah, 2017 Ohio 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “” R.C. 3105.18(B). Absent a challenge to a particular factual finding of the trial court, this Court “‘reviews a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(h) — 6 cases
Heimann v. Heimann, 2022 Ohio 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Ernsberger v. Ernsberger, 2014 Ohio 4470 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Machesky v. Machesky, 2011 Ohio 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
MacDonald v. MacDonald, 2011 Ohio 5389 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Shetler v. Shetler, 2013 Ohio 5860 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(i) — 48 cases
Falah v. Falah, 2017 Ohio 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “” R.C. 3105.18(B). Absent a challenge to a particular factual finding of the trial court, this Court “‘reviews a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Bobie v. Bobie, 2023 Ohio 3293 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Palazzo v. Palazzo, 2016 Ohio 3041 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Passyalia v. Moneir, 2017 Ohio 7033 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Daugherty v. Daugherty, 2013 Ohio 1934 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(j) — 10 cases
Stratton v. Stratton, 2019 Ohio 3279 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023 Ohio 169 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶ 30} The trial court cannot consider any single R.C. 3105.18(C) factor in isolation. Kaechele at paragraph one of the syllabus.”
Falah v. Falah, 2017 Ohio 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “” R.C. 3105.18(B). Absent a challenge to a particular factual finding of the trial court, this Court “‘reviews a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020 Ohio 4881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Legal Standard {¶68} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.”
Heimann v. Heimann, 2022 Ohio 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(k) — 6 cases
Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 2020 Ohio 4881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Legal Standard {¶68} R.C. 3105.18 governs the award of spousal support in divorce cases.”
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
Heimann v. Heimann, 2022 Ohio 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Boney v. Boney, 2010 Ohio 4245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
Muckensturm v. Muckensturm, 2012 Ohio 3062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(l) — 16 cases
Schuh v. Schuh, 2014 Ohio 4755 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Spillane v. Spillane, 2020 Ohio 5052 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
La Spisa v. La Spisa, 2023 Ohio 3467 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Nelson v. Nelson, 2022 Ohio 658 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(m) — 10 cases
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
Falah v. Falah, 2017 Ohio 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “” R.C. 3105.18(B). Absent a challenge to a particular factual finding of the trial court, this Court “‘reviews a spousal support award under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Clifford v. Skaggs, 2017 Ohio 8597 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Saks v. Riga, 2014 Ohio 4930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Heimann v. Heimann, 2022 Ohio 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(1)(n) — 61 cases
Collins v. Collins, 2011 Ohio 2087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Unlike the child support statute, there is no language in R.C. 3105.18 that directs the trial court to “impute” income.”
Choi v. Choi, 2018 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Kapadia v. Kapadia, 2011 Ohio 2255 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Rucks v. Moore, 2018 Ohio 4692 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023 Ohio 169 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶ 30} The trial court cannot consider any single R.C. 3105.18(C) factor in isolation. Kaechele at paragraph one of the syllabus.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(2) — 14 cases
Organ v. Organ, 2014 Ohio 3474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “It reasoned that, if sustenance means to sustain, the upper limit of spousal support that can be awarded in a case is the amount that is needed to allow the recipient spouse to maintain the marital standard of living.”
C.S. v. M.S., 2019 Ohio 1876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Hutta v. Hutta, 894 N.E.2d 1282 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
Nguyen v. Coy, 2017 Ohio 4164 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Collins v. Collins, 2011 Ohio 2087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Unlike the child support statute, there is no language in R.C. 3105.18 that directs the trial court to “impute” income.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(a) — 1 case
Salameh v. Salameh, 2019 Ohio 5390 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(b) — 2 cases
Mahoney v. Mahoney, 2017 Ohio 7917 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Muckensturm v. Muckensturm, 2012 Ohio 3062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(d) — 1 case
Muckensturm v. Muckensturm, 2012 Ohio 3062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(l) — 2 cases
Hawbecker v. Hawbecker, 2016 Ohio 5740 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Kohn v. Kohn, 2025 Ohio 1052 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(l)(i) — 1 case
Glassner v. Glassner, 828 N.E.2d 642 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(l)(k) — 1 case
Goode v. Goode, 590 N.E.2d 439 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(C)(l)(n) — 4 cases
Moore v. Moore, 613 N.E.2d 1097 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Krisher v. Krisher, 611 N.E.2d 499 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Apt v. Apt, 947 N.E.2d 1317 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Ghai v. Ghai, 913 N.E.2d 508 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(D) — 18 cases
Morris v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5002 (Ohio 2016). “{¶ 31} In Crouser, this court held that R.C. 3105.18 is the substantive law that controls whether a trial court has authority to modify an award of spousal support.”
Barton v. Barton, 2017 Ohio 980 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 2009 Ohio 1222 (Ohio 2009). “21773, 2004-Ohio-3844 , 2004 WL 1620723 , relying on amendments to R.C. 3105.18, held that trial courts have jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support based on “any” change in circumstances rather than a substantial change.”
Condit v. Condit, 943 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
Okos v. Okos, 739 N.E.2d 368 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(D)(1) — 3 cases
Gullia v. Gullia, 639 N.E.2d 822 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
Merkle v. Merkle, 686 N.E.2d 316 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
Meinke v. Meinke, 565 N.E.2d 875 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(D)(2) — 3 cases
Morris v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5002 (Ohio 2016). “{¶ 31} In Crouser, this court held that R.C. 3105.18 is the substantive law that controls whether a trial court has authority to modify an award of spousal support.”
Colley v. Colley, 538 N.E.2d 410 (Ohio 1989).
In re Adams, 543 N.E.2d 797 (Ohio 1989).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(DX1) — 1 case
Cassavore v. Cassavore, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 232 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(E) — 137 cases
Morris v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5002 (Ohio 2016). “{¶ 31} In Crouser, this court held that R.C. 3105.18 is the substantive law that controls whether a trial court has authority to modify an award of spousal support.”
Kimble v. Kimble, 2002 Ohio 6667 (Ohio 2002).
Kimble v. Kimble, 780 N.E.2d 273 (Ohio 2002).
Barton v. Barton, 2017 Ohio 980 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Reveal v. Reveal, 798 N.E.2d 1132 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(E)(1) — 49 cases
Smoyer v. Smoyer, 2019 Ohio 3461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 18} Regarding spousal support, the trial court conducted an analysis pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The court considered Chloe's age and health, the length of the marriage, Chloe's present employability, the labor market, the ease of obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or…”
Joseph v. Joseph, 702 N.E.2d 949 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Berthelot v. Berthelot, 796 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Bowen v. Bowen, 725 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “While need was previously considered under the old statutory scheme, this court has made clear “that under R.C. 3105.18, as modified in April 1991, ‘need’ is no longer the basis for a spousal support award.”
Rohlman v. Rohlman, 2018 Ohio 1543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(E)(2) — 16 cases
Apt v. Apt, 947 N.E.2d 1317 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Walsh v. Walsh, 2022 Ohio 3373 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Thomas v. Thomas, 825 N.E.2d 626 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
Tedrick v. Tedrick, 2016 Ohio 1488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Miller v. Miller, 2022 Ohio 1493 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(F) — 79 cases
Pietrantano v. Pietrantano, 2013 Ohio 4330 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Tsai v. Tien, 832 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 2009 Ohio 1222 (Ohio 2009). “21773, 2004-Ohio-3844 , 2004 WL 1620723 , relying on amendments to R.C. 3105.18, held that trial courts have jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support based on “any” change in circumstances rather than a substantial change.”
Kucmanic v. Kucmanic, 695 N.E.2d 1205 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Bowen v. Bowen, 725 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “While need was previously considered under the old statutory scheme, this court has made clear “that under R.C. 3105.18, as modified in April 1991, ‘need’ is no longer the basis for a spousal support award.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(F)(1) — 36 cases
Stevens v. Stevens, 2018 Ohio 2662 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Simon v. Simon, 2021 Ohio 1387 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Daubenmire v. Daubenmire, 2019 Ohio 2372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Pietrantano v. Pietrantano, 2013 Ohio 4330 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Cox v. Cox, 2017 Ohio 1010 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(F)(1)(a) — 20 cases
Bixler v. Bixler, 2017 Ohio 7022 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Cox v. Cox, 2017 Ohio 1010 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
DiPasquale v. DiPasquale, 2016 Ohio 8457 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Schroer v. Schroer, 2020 Ohio 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Barry v. White, 2023 Ohio 1570 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(F)(1)(b) — 11 cases
Tedrick v. Tedrick, 2016 Ohio 1488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Barry v. White, 2023 Ohio 1570 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Loewe v. Loewe, 2024 Ohio 323 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Patti v. Patti, 2014 Ohio 1156 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Ogle v. Ogle, 2018 Ohio 5141 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(F)(2) — 17 cases
Barry v. White, 2023 Ohio 1570 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Simon v. Simon, 2021 Ohio 1387 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Kolenz v. Kolenz, 2013 Ohio 3605 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Talley v. Talley, 2016 Ohio 3533 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Salvato v. Salvato, 2013 Ohio 5268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(F)(b) — 1 case
Branden v. Branden, 2017 Ohio 7477 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(G) — 18 cases
Szymczak v. Szymczak, 737 N.E.2d 980 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Tretola v. Tretola, 2014 Ohio 5484 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Dean v. Dean, 2011 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Simon v. Simon, 2021 Ohio 1387 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Rhea v. Rhea, 2017 Ohio 4141 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(H) — 47 cases
Oatey v. Oatey, 614 N.E.2d 1054 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “” Defendant’s brief in opposition argues the “Order” for interim attorney fees was entered pursuant to R.C. 3105.18(H) and constitutes a final appealable order affecting a “substantial right” made in a “special proceeding” within the scope of R.”
Allan v. Allan, 2019 Ohio 2111 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Bradley v. Bradley, 2021 Ohio 2514 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Hess v. Riedel-Hess, 794 N.E.2d 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Groza-Vance v. Vance, 834 N.E.2d 15 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(S) — 1 case
Bevens v. Bevens, 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 171 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(a) — 1 case
Branden v. Branden, 2017 Ohio 7477 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(a)(b)(c)(d) — 1 case
Clifford v. Skaggs, 2017 Ohio 8597 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(c)(1) — 3 cases
Buzard v. Buzard, 2012 Ohio 2658 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Hittle v. Hittle, 910 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Dolan v. Dolan, 2011 Ohio 5195 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(c)(1)(i) — 1 case
Fordyce v. Fordyce, 2011 Ohio 3406 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(e)(1) — 1 case
Williams v. Williams, 2016 Ohio 7595 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(e)(l) — 1 case
Quinn v. Quinn, 2022 Ohio 3643 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.18(l) — 1 case
Levy v. Levy, 2014 Ohio 2650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
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.