Evans v. Evans

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth Appellate District, Butler County · 2025 · Family Law

Family LawDivorceSpousal Supportspousal supportR.C. 3105.18(B)withdrawal of requestreliancedivorce

Facts

Daniel filed for divorce in November 2022, and Nicholas filed an answer and counterclaim in December 2022; both initially requested spousal support. Before or at the contested final hearing, the parties agreed that neither was seeking spousal support, and Daniel's proposed divorce decree stated that neither party would pay spousal support. During Daniel's testimony, he expressly confirmed that he was not asking for spousal support and understood the court could not later award it. Nicholas then litigated the hearing without presenting evidence on spousal support, but the trial court's final decree nevertheless ordered Nicholas to pay Daniel $5 per month in spousal support until the equalization payment was paid in full.

Issue

May a trial court award spousal support under R.C. 3105.18(B) when a party who initially requested support later specifically withdraws that request at or before the hearing, and the opposing party relies on the withdrawal by not presenting evidence on spousal support?

Rule

Under R.C. 3105.18(B), a trial court may award spousal support only upon the request of either party. If a party initially requests spousal support but later specifically withdraws that request, and the other party relies on the withdrawal, the trial court no longer has statutory authority to award spousal support; doing so is an error of law, and if the error is harmful, the award must be reversed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a divorce action in Dayton, Ohio, Lena Ortiz requested spousal support in her complaint, and Marcus Ortiz requested it in his counterclaim. At the final hearing, Lena testified that she was no longer asking for spousal support and understood the court could not later award it, and Marcus then presented no testimony or exhibits about support. The court later ordered Marcus to pay Lena $200 per month after discussing the statutory support factors.

Should the spousal support award be upheld?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, R.C. 3105.18(B) permits a spousal support award only upon a current request by either party. An initial pleading is not enough if the requesting party later specifically withdraws the request and the opposing party relies by not litigating support. Consideration of the R.C. 3105.18(C) factors does not cure the lack of statutory authority.