OHIO: An introduction to Family/Matrimonial: High Net Worth

While Ohio did not experience any significant legal changes in 2024, family law practice, and its related impact on High-Net Worth representation, continues to evolve in 2025 in nuanced ways. Additionally, some appellate court cases signal potential guidance for lower courts on otherwise discretionary issues. Of particular interest are issues related to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), security for property divisions paid overtime, and the treatment of frozen embryos and Artificial Reproductive a technologies (ARTs).  

Continued Interest in Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Ohio continues to see an interest in ADR mechanisms from both clients and courts. In December 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court published a Neutral Evaluation Toolkit as a resource for courts, promoting the ADR “neutral evaluation” model, sometimes known as “early neutral evaluation.” Several family law courts around the state are implementing early neutral evaluation programs in which parties can either agree to participate or can be ordered to participate.

Early neutral evaluation (ENE) is a dispute resolution process by which the early neutral evaluators provide an evaluation of the probable outcome of any dispute. ENE is not mediation; instead, the evaluators provide feedback to the parties after submissions from the parties and argument. The parties can use that feedback to determine if a settlement can be reached; however, the parties are not required to accept the evaluation provided and can proceed with litigation.

Other dispute resolution processes are also attracting more attention, including arbitration and parenting coordination for parenting issues. Private judging is also available.

Ohio has an arbitration statute to govern proceedings, though it is not specific to family law arbitration as in other states. Arbitration offers the parties a private and streamlined forum to have their dispute resolved; the arbitrator(s) commits to issuing an award with a set timeframe. While not always the case, arbitration is generally more cost-effective than traditional litigation. Absent unique circumstances, arbitration awards are not appealable and offer finality. Arbitration is attractive to high-net-worth clients who may require certain disputes to be resolved by a third party but also appreciate the privacy and efficiency of the proceedings.

Ohio does not allow arbitration of parenting issues, though child support may be arbitrated. However, Ohio does specifically recognize parenting coordination. A parenting coordinator is a neutral third party who is appointed by the court to help divorced or separated parents resolve disputes and, if these cannot be resolved, to make certain decisions about their children. The court appointment provides the parenting coordinator with his/her authority to implement the court order and to make decisions within the scope of their authority; while a parenting coordinator cannot radically change the parenting time schedule, for example, the coordinator can make decisions about participation in extracurricular activities or about coordinating vacation parenting time. Parenting coordinators are typically licensed mental health professionals or family law attorneys who have specific training.

Courts are more frequently appointing parenting coordinators for high-conflict parents in either post-divorce conflicts or for parents finalizing contentious custody litigation. Courts hope that parenting coordinators can y post-divorce litigation by resolving discrete issues outside of the court and without need for court resources. Additionally, parenting coordinators can respond to time-sensitive disputes more quickly than courts can – being able to address and resolve disputes within the scope of their authority timely.

In addition to dispute resolution ADR options, Ohio also continues to see an uptick in ADR negotiating models. ADR negotiation models can include the following:

• mediation;
• evaluative mediation;
• facilitation; and
• parenting coaches.

ADR negotiating models provide an out-of-court venue for the parties to negotiate a resolution, often with the assistance of a third-party neutral facilitating the conversation using an interest-based approach.

Ohio primarily has two more formal ADR processes available as well, the Collaborative Divorce process and the Cooperative Divorce Process (a two-phase process that combines a negotiation model with a dispute resolution mechanism(s)).

ADR mechanisms continue to enjoy popularity in Ohio. Courts are increasingly encouraging litigants to participate in these processes – and, in some instances, ordering participation. Ohio is also increasing its exploration of early neutral evaluation as a court-ordered process in addition to private options. This ADR trend looks to continue in 2025 and beyond.

Security for Property Division Payments Over Time

In Oakes v Oakes & Leadwise, Inc., an Ohio appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to provide security for a husband’s USD28 million property division payment to his wife to be paid over seven years. Ohio law provides that a trial court has discretion whether to order security for a payment obligation arising from a marital property division. The appellate court found that there was no sound reasoning why the trial court rejected the wife’s requests for some sort of security, including, potentially, a promissory note, security agreement, liens, guarantees, stock-transfer restrictions, or immediate payment if the husband sold stock in the business.

The appellate court determined that, because of the size of the award, the seven-year duration of the payment obligation, and the husband’s control over the business, the trial court was obligated to order some form of security for the debt. However, the appellate court left the nature of the security up to the trial court on remand.

Oakes highlights the challenge inherent in cases where a privately held business entity is a significant portion of the marital estate: what security can and should be implemented for a long-term property division payment structure for the spouse who does not retain the business interest? While Ohio law still encourages parties to reach agreements to ensure appropriate security mechanisms, Oakes provides guidance for Ohio courts that security is required in cases where large awards are paid over a significant period, especially when the retaining spouse has control over the business interest.

In Berger v Berger, another appellate court in 2015 was confronted with a similar issue, albeit for a smaller lump sum property division payment. In Berger, a different appellate court determined that a stock pledge was not sufficient security for the husband’s USD1.9 million property division payment over a 12-year term when the business already had significant debt. However, the Berger court did not provide more direction on when the courts should determine that security is necessary or how the courts should evaluate whether proposed security is sufficient.

Oakes provides some additional contours for the courts – and attorneys – to consider when determining whether security for required for a property division payment made over time. While it does not fully answer all the questions presented – and while the issue of security remains at the court’s discretion – it does suggest that security can be required in certain circumstances.

Controversy Over Treatment of Frozen Embryos in Divorce

In E.B. v R.N., one appellate court reversed a trial court decision and ordered that the wife was entitled to use all fourteen of the parties’ frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization for implantation if she so chose. The trial court had determined that the frozen embryos were marital property and used a contractual approach to address their disposition. This appellate court stated that all three main approaches to the disposition of frozen embryos in Ohio (contractual, method, contemporaneous-mutual-consent method, and balance method) are “inadequate in one way or another”, requesting that this problem “must be rectified by action by the legislature.”

The appellate court goes on to reject the view that the frozen embryos are property at all, but that they are “life or the potential for life.” The opinion of that Ohio’s public policy prefers the preservation and continuation of life whenever constitutionally permissible. It advocates that, until there is better “statutory guidance” on this issue to further direct the court, courts should determine these matters “upon their unique facts taking into account the fact that the frozen embryos are not property, but life or the potential for life.” The court remanded the case only for the husband to be given an opportunity to set forth his wishes “with respect to the potential offspring” which could be incorporated into the amended decree.

By rejecting all three of the primary approaches/methods to disposition of frozen embryos, this appellate court creates a difference (“split”) between this appellate district and others in Ohio on this important issue. In October 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction to address this case. Only time will determine whether other Ohio appellate courts follow the E.B. court or whether it becomes an outlier appellate jurisdiction on this issue. Additionally, Ohio waits to see if the legislature will accept this court’s call for legislative action and statutory guidance.

As in vitro fertilization and other artificial reproductive technology become increasingly more common, Ohio family law attorneys will continue to encounter this issue in divorce cases. As a result, Ohio attorneys will be closely following this issue so that they can advise their clients – particularly those in this appellate district – and understand additional developments in this area of law.