M.K. v. K.M.

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 25CA012289
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as M.K. v. K.M., 2026-Ohio-2456.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )

M. K. C.A. No. 25CA012289

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE K. M. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 20DR088507

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 29, 2026

HENSAL, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} K.M. (“Husband”) appeals an order of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas,

Domestic Relations Division, that granted a divorce to M.K. (“Wife”). This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Husband and Wife married on May 16, 2019. Wife filed a complaint for annulment

and divorce in 2020, and on October 23, 2023, the trial court granted Wife an annulment. Husband

appealed, and this Court reversed with respect to the trial court’s decision to grant an annulment

instead of a divorce. M.K. v. K.M., 2024-Ohio-5147, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.). On remand, the trial court

granted Wife a divorce “based upon the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty.”

Husband appealed, assigning one error for this Court’s review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT [WIFE] WAS ENTITLED TO A DIVORCE 2

FROM [HUSBAND] BASED UPON THE GROUNDS OF GROSS NEGLECT AND EXTREME CRUELTY.

{¶3} Husband’s assignment of error argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

granting a divorce to Wife on the grounds of gross neglect and extreme cruelty. This Court does

not agree.

{¶4} A divorce may granted for any of the reasons set forth in Revised Code Section

3105.01, including extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. R.C. 3105.01(D)/(F). The terms

“extreme cruelty” and “gross neglect of duty” elude a “concrete definition.” Patton v. Hickling-

Patton, 2014-Ohio-2862, ¶ 4 (9th Dist.), quoting Deuri v. Deuri, 1987 WL 14429, *1 (9th Dist.

July 15, 1987). With respect to extreme cruelty, this Court has concluded that the term “is

sufficiently broad enough to encompass acts and conduct which are calculated to permanently

destroy the peace of mind and happiness of one of the parties to the marriage and thereby render

the marriage relationship intolerable.” Yankovich v. Yankovich, 1988 WL 104408, *3 (9th Dist.

Oct. 5, 1988). The term includes, but is not limited to, physical abuse. Parks v. Parks, 1989 WL

35134, *2 (9th Dist. Apr. 12, 1989), quoting Buess v. Buess, 89 Ohio App. 37 (3d Dist. 1950). See

also Patton at ¶ 5-6 (recognizing the presence of extreme cruelty where one spouse exhibited

physical and mental abuse toward the other). “[W]hat facts constitute extreme cruelty is left to the

broad, sound discretion of the trial court and depends upon all the circumstances of the particular

case.” Brinker v. Brinker, 1987 WL 19457, *1 (9th Dist. Oct. 28, 1987).

{¶5} In this case, the evidence at the hearing included testimony describing incidents of

abuse that included, but were not limited to, physical violence. On one occasion, for example,

Wife described an incident in which Husband attempted to strangle her to the point where she was

unable to breathe. Wife also confirmed that she obtained a domestic violence civil protection order

against Husband. This Court cannot conclude that the trial court’s decision to grant the parties a 3

divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty was an abuse of discretion.

Husband’s assignment of error is overruled.

III.

{¶6} Husband’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County

Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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 Lorain, 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(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 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 Appellant.

JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR. 4

APPEARANCES:

TROY A. MURPHY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

MICHAEL G. POLITO, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.