[Cite as Weir v. Weir, 2011-Ohio-2992.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

KARIN A. WEIR 

 Appellee 

 v. 

THOMAS E. WEIR 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 10CA0058-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE No. 07DR0068 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 20, 2011 

 

 BELFANCE, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Thomas Weir appeals the decision of the Medina County 

Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the reasons set forth below, we 

reverse. 

I. 

{¶2} Mr. Weir married Karin Weir on August 23, 1987. No children were born of the 

marriage. Ms. Weir filed for divorce on February 6, 2007. The court issued a judgment entry of 

divorce on December 26, 2007. Mr. Weir was ordered to pay $2,200 a month in spousal support 

for the shorter of eight years, Ms. Weir’s death, Ms. Weir’s remarriage, or Mr. Weir’s death. 

The court retained jurisdiction to as the term and amount of spousal support. On February 3, 

2009, Mr. Weir filed a motion to terminate or suspend spousal support after his employment was 

terminated from his primary job when the company he worked for went out of business. 
2 

 

{¶3} A magistrate held a hearing on the matter and issued a decision concluding that 

“[t]here has been a change of circumstances that was not contemplated at the time of the 

divorce.” The magistrate further found that it was appropriate to reduce Mr. Weir’s spousal 

support obligation to $1,250 a month and that the obligation should continue for the shorter of 

eight years beginning January 2008, either party’s death, or Ms. Weir’s remarriage. Mr. Weir 

objected on the basis that the magistrate’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” The trial 

court held a hearing on the objections and issued a decision overruling Mr. Weir’s objection and 

adopting the magistrate’s decision reducing the spousal support award to $1,250 a month. Mr. 

Weir has appealed raising five assignments of error for our review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

“The trial court abused its discretion in its post-decree determination of spousal 

support after finding a change of circumstance by reducing the support award 

from $2,200 per month to $1,250 instead of suspending the award given its 

finding that the Appellant was involuntarily unemployed and thereby his income 

had been reduced to less than the income of the Appellee.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

“The trial court abused its discretion in its post-decree determination of spousal 

support after finding a change of circumstance by reducing the support award 

from $2,200 per month to $1,250 instead of suspending the award given its 

finding that the Appellant was involuntarily unemployed by failing to quantify the 

income of the appellant as would be required by the factors of Ohio Revised Code 

Section 3105.18(C) in making such a determination.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

“The trial court abused its discretion in its post-decree determination of spousal 

support after finding a change of circumstance by reducing the support award 

from $2,200 per month to $1,250 instead of suspending the award given its 

finding that the Appellant was involuntarily unemployed by finding that the 

Appellant had assets to pay spousal support where the parties had effectuated an 

equal division of those assets less than fourteen months previous to the request for 
3 

 

modification and the Court failed to quantify those assets as a basis for its 

decision.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

“The trial court abused its discretion in its post-decree determination of spousal 

support after finding a change of circumstance by reducing the support award 

from $2,200 per month to $1,250 instead of suspending the award given its 

finding that the Appellant was involuntarily unemployed by finding that the 

Appellant had assets to pay spousal support where clearly the only assets to be 

used were retirement assets, the disposition of which would create a tax penalty 

for Appellant, based upon the age of the appellant, and the real estate for which 

appellee had received her equitable interest less than fourteen months previous.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V 

“The trial court abused its discretion in its post-decree determination of spousal 

support after finding a change of circumstance by reducing the support award 

from $2,200 per month to $1,250 instead of suspending the award during the 

period of time Appellant is unemployed by failing to consider all of the factors of 

Ohio Revised Code Section 3105.18(C).” 

{¶4} Essentially in each of Mr. Weir’s five assignments of error he asserts that the trial 

court erred in reducing the spousal support award to $1,250 instead of suspending it. 

{¶5} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “a trial court lacks jurisdiction to 

modify a prior order of spousal support unless the decree of the court expressly reserved 

jurisdiction to make the modification and unless the court finds (1) that a substantial change in 

circumstances has occurred and (2) that the change was not contemplated at the time of the 

original decree.” (Emphasis added.) Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433, 2009-

Ohio-1222, at ¶33. While the magistrate found that “[t]here has been a change of circumstances 

that was not contemplated at the time of the divorce[,]” and the trial court adopted the 

magistrate’s decision, neither entry includes a finding of a substantial change of circumstances 

not contemplated at the time of the divorce. See id; see, also, Tufts v. Tufts, 9th Dist. No. 24871, 

2010-Ohio-641, at ¶11; Johns v. Johns, 9th Dist. No. 24704, 2009-Ohio-5798, at ¶¶6, 10. 

Accordingly, because the trial court failed to make the requisite finding necessary to establish its 
4 

 

jurisdiction over the matter as contemplated by Mandelbaum, the trial court erred in proceeding 

to determine that the existing support order should be modified. See Mandelbaum at syllabus; 

Tufts at ¶11. 

{¶6} Thus, to the extent Mr. Weir asserts in his assignments of error that the trial 

court’s modification of the support order was error, we agree, albeit not for the reasons advanced 

by Mr. Weir. See Johns at ¶11. 

III. 

{¶7} In light of our conclusion that the trial court erred by not making the requisite 

findings to establish jurisdiction over Mr. Weir’s motion to terminate or suspend spousal 

support, the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations 

Division, is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

Judgment reversed, 

and cause remanded. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 
5 

 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellee. 

 

 EVE V. BELFANCE 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, J. 

DICKINSON, J. 

CONCUR

APPEARANCES:

RICHARD J. MARCO, JR., Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

DENNIS E. PAUL, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.