Background
Robert Grounds and Marilyn Ward married in November 2000 and divorced in December 2021 after more than 20 years of marriage. The divorce decree ordered Grounds to pay $2,400 per month in spousal support for 84 months, with a termination provision upon Ward’s cohabitation with an unrelated adult. In April 2025, Grounds filed a motion to terminate spousal support, alleging that Ward was cohabiting with a man named John Frost in Florida.
At the evidentiary hearing, Grounds and Ward were the sole witnesses. Ward acknowledged that she had been living with Frost, but characterized the arrangement as a friendship and roommate situation, denying any romantic or marital relationship. The trial court found that Ward did share living expenses with Frost but that the evidence did not establish the type of “shared life” arrangement that would constitute cohabitation for purposes of terminating spousal support. The trial court also declined to modify the support amount. Grounds appealed, also arguing the trial court improperly excluded evidence and dismissed his primary witness.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. The court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard, noting that cohabitation for purposes of terminating spousal support requires more than simply sharing a residence. Under Ohio law, the trial court must examine the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the relationship, sharing of expenses, duration of the arrangement, and whether the parties hold themselves out as a couple. The trial court’s finding that Ward and Frost’s arrangement was more akin to a roommate situation than a cohabiting relationship was supported by the evidence.
The court also rejected Grounds’ challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s exclusion of certain evidence or its handling of witness testimony at the hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Cohabitation sufficient to terminate spousal support under Ohio law requires more than sharing a residence; courts examine the totality of the relationship including financial interdependence, romantic involvement, and whether the parties hold themselves out as a couple.
- The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a living arrangement constitutes cohabitation, and its findings will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion.
- The party seeking termination of spousal support bears the burden of proving cohabitation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on Ohio’s cohabitation standard for spousal support termination. Practitioners representing payors should be prepared to present evidence going beyond the mere fact of shared living quarters — evidence of romantic involvement, financial interdependence, and public representation as a couple will be critical. Conversely, counsel for support recipients should emphasize the platonic and practical nature of shared-housing arrangements. The opinion underscores the broad discretion trial courts exercise in these fact-intensive determinations.