Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Ohio St. 3d 289

McClain v. McClain

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1984

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1984-12-31

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A court of common pleas does not have jurisdiction to modify a provision for periodic sustenance alimony payments contained within a dissolution of marriage decree. (Wolfe v. Wolfe, 46 Ohio St. 2d 399 [ 75 O.O.2d 474 ], limited.)””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 26 Ohio App. 3d 201 - Merrill v. Merrill, Knapp v. Knapp

““* * * The court has full power to enforce its decree, and retains jurisdiction to modify all matters of custody, child support, visitation, and periodic alimony payments.” (Emphasis added.) (135 Ohio Laws, Part II, 603, 616.)”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Knapp v. Knapp, Colley v. Colley

Relies on Wolfe v. Wolfe · 1 Ohio App. 3d 146 - Alban v. Alban · 1 Ohio App. 3d 80 - Ashley v. Ashley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-12-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Knapp v. Knapp (1986), Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum (2009)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions

1501984199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

J. P. Celebrezze, J.

¶1The sole question before this court is whether a court of common pleas may modify a provision for periodic sustenance alimony contained within a dissolution of marriage decree. We answer this question by limiting our holding in Wolfe v. Wolfe (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 399 [75 O.O.2d 474], to divorce cases, and by denying a trial court such jurisdiction to modify when the parties have voluntarily agreed to a dissolution.

¶2The jurisdiction exercised by a trial court when granting a divorce is decidedly different than the jurisdiction exercised when granting a dissolution of marriage. In a divorce case the matter of periodic alimony payments is one for determination by the court. A court, after considering the evidence before it, may accept or reject a separation agreement entered into by the parties, or may make its own determination as to the need for, and amount of, periodic alimony payments. In a dissolution case, however, the matter of periodic alimony payments is one to be settled by voluntary agreement between the parties. A court has no jurisdiction to grant a dissolution unless the parties have entered into a separation agreement either providing for alimony, or providing that none shall be paid. See, e.g., Alban v. Alban (1981), 1 Ohio App. 3d 146, 148, and Ashley v. Ashley (1981), 1 Ohio App. 3d 80, 82.

¶3The limitation upon a court’s jurisdiction in dissolution cases extends to modifications of separation agreements after a decree is entered. Just as a court lacks authority to set the original amount of alimony payments in a dissolution case, a court also lacks authority to modify the amount of alimony payments originally agreed to by the parties. See, e.g., Alban v. Alban, supra.

¶4The legislative history of R.C. 3105.65(B) indicates that the General Assembly has considered the question sub judice and has reached the same conclusion as does this court. R.C. 3105.65(B) empowers the court to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage incorporating a separation agreement. As originally enacted in 1974, the final sentence of R.C. 3105.65(B) read: “The court has full power to enforce its decree, and retains jurisdiction to modify all matters of custody, child support, visitation, and periodic alimony payments.” (135 Ohio Laws, Part II, 603, 616.) One year later the General Assembly amended R.C. 3105.65(B) by deleting the words “and periodic alimony payments.” (136 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2451, 2452.) The final sentence of R.C. 3105.65(B) now reads: “The court has full power to enforce its decree, and retains jurisdiction to modify all matters of custody, child support, and visitation.” We can infer from this deletion *291that the legislature specifically intended that a court would not retain jurisdiction to modify periodic alimony payments provided for in a separar tion agreement incorporated in a decree of dissolution of marriage.

¶5In light of the consensual nature of separation agreements incorporated into decrees of dissolution of marriage, and the legislative history of R.C. 3105.65(B), we hold that a court of common pleas does not have jurisdiction to modify a provision for periodic sustenance alimony payments contained within a dissolution of marriage decree.

¶6Judgment reversed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes and C. Brown, JJ., concur.Locher, J., concurs in judgment only.Ford, J., dissents.Ford, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for W. Brown, J.
/15/ohiost3d/289 · .json · Public domain