The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant spousal support case, Jose v. Jose, which could affect future modifications of support payments. The court's decision came on September 30, 2026, and it reversed a previous ruling from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This case centers around Becky Jose, who sought to modify her spousal support from her ex-husband, Phillip Jose, after claiming a substantial change in circumstances.
The ruling is crucial for individuals navigating similar legal disputes, particularly those involving spousal support and the complexities of modifying such agreements. This decision could set a precedent for how courts assess changes in financial circumstances over time.
Background
Becky Jose and Phillip Jose divorced on November 12, 2014. During the divorce proceedings, the court determined that Phillip Jose was retired from the Army Reserve and received a disability pension due to PTSD. The court awarded Becky Jose 36.50% of Phillip's total monthly disability retirement pay, which was approximately $4,600 at the time of the divorce.
The divorce decree allowed for modifications of spousal support if there was a substantial change in circumstances. In 2016, Becky Jose filed a motion to recharacterize a portion of Phillip's pension as permanent spousal support, arguing that she could not directly receive her assigned share of the disability payments. The court agreed, and Phillip was ordered to pay her $1,810.77 per month in spousal support.
Fast forward to March 12, 2024, when Becky Jose filed another motion to modify her spousal support. She argued that Phillip's income had increased significantly due to cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) over the years, which constituted a substantial change in circumstances. However, Phillip Jose opposed this motion, claiming that federal law prohibited any recharacterization of his combat disability pay and that the court did not have jurisdiction to modify the spousal support.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Betty Sutton, ruled in favor of Becky Jose, reversing the lower court's decision. The court found that the trial court had erred in determining that there had been no substantial change in circumstances without considering Phillip's current income. The court stated, "The trial court must determine, in the first instance, whether a substantial change in circumstances existed as to any increase in Husband’s wages due to COLA increases over the past ten years."
Additionally, the court noted that the magistrate's conclusion that the trial court did not retain jurisdiction to modify the spousal support was incorrect. The court emphasized that the original divorce decree allowed for modifications based on substantial changes in circumstances, which had not been adequately assessed.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for spousal support cases in Ohio. It clarifies that courts must consider current financial circumstances when determining whether to modify spousal support. The decision reinforces the notion that changes in income, particularly due to adjustments like COLA, can warrant a reevaluation of support payments.
Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of having the opportunity to present evidence regarding changes in circumstances. The court's ruling suggests that future hearings must allow both parties to provide relevant financial information, ensuring a fair assessment of spousal support modifications.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision. It remains to be seen how the lower court will proceed in light of this ruling, and whether Phillip Jose will appeal the decision.