A Leader In
Ohio Family Law

Attorney Fees In Child Custody Case Mother Gets $40,000

Our Firm successfully represented a mother in obtaining an order for father to reimburse $40,000 to the mother for attorney fees in her child custody case. Not only was the mother successful in defeating the father’s custody request, but the mother successfully defeated the father’s request for additional parenting time. The Union County Trial Court found that there was no change in circumstances requiring any change in custody of mother, nor for the visitation of father. Further, the court stated the mother’s award was, “based upon the scope, sophistication and duration of the litigation initiated by the father.” The Appeals Court then upheld the Trial Court’s ruling.

Learn more about the case.

Child Support Modification And Change Of Circumstances

Our firm successfully defended a father in Appeals Court against the mother’s motion to modify father’s child support obligation. The parties had a shared parenting plan where weekly parenting time alternated between the two. The parties agreed in their divorce decree that neither parent would pay child support to the other, as each was responsible for the costs of the child during their parenting time.

However, mother filed a motion to modify child support after the divorce had concluded, despite the parties’ earlier agreement. The Trial Court granted mother’s motion and ordered the father to pay child support to the mother. The Trial Court argued it had found a substantial change of circumstances had occurred, justifying the modification.

Learn more about the case.

Motion To Modify Child Support In An Agreed Shared Parenting Plan Overturned

Attorney Greco successfully represented a father in appealing a trial court modifying child support he was ordered to pay. Further, the court ordered father to pay the mother’s attorney’s fees. However, the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on both issues.

Learn more about the case.

Retirement Account Gains After Date Of Divorce

Greco Law successfully challenged an award of gains on a retirement account to our client’s ex-wife. The parties were subject to a decree that stated “all retirement assets of the parties shall be equalized as of the day of divorce.” Three years later, ex-wife filed a motion to enforce the terms of the decree, as one of husband’s accounts had not been divided yet. The ex-wife claimed that she was entitled to at least $443,225.24. The Trial Court ruled for the ex-wife and awarded her $220,000 from the retirement account. Husband appealed this ruling.

Our firm successfully argued that the ex-wife had no claim to the gains that had accrued since the divorce. The Appeals Court applied the “normal rules of contract interpretation” to analyze the statement “[a]ll retirement assets of the parties shall be equalized as the day of divorce.” The Appeals Court determined that the decree was unambiguous in its intent to divide the assets equally based on their value as of the date of divorce, and that “the language of the decree did not indicate that ex-wife, a nonparticipant under the retirement plan, has any right to any gains or losses on the assets accruing after the date of divorce.” The Appeals Court found our client and overturned the Trial Court’s ruling, saving our client $220,000 in gains on his retirement account.