Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

North v. Eichler

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 857
• Docket Number: 30614

• Judges: Lewis

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.8K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Appellant failed to establish that he did not receive proper notice of the final divorce hearing. The trial court's order providing notice of the hearing stated that a copy of it was sent to appellant's last-known address by regular U.S. mail, as required by Civ.R. 75(L). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the parties' property in half where the trial court relied on appellee's proposed divorce decree and appellant failed to appear at the final hearing. Judgment affirmed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as North v. Eichler, 2026-Ohio-857.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

MELISSA L. NORTH :
: C.A. No. 30614
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2025 DR 00344
v. :
: (Appeal from Common Pleas Court-
CHRISTIAN W. EICHLER : Domestic Relations)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on March 13, 2026, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE

EPLEY, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30614

CYNTHIA L. WESTWOOD, Attorney for Appellant
MARK D. WEBB and ELAINE M. LANDIS, Attorneys for Appellee

LEWIS, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant Christian W. Eichler appeals from a divorce decree entered by the

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division. For the following

reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On June 11, 2025, appellee Melissa L. North filed a complaint for divorce in the

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division. North alleged

that she had married Eichler in October 2000, they had no children together, and they were

incompatible. She sought a divorce, an equitable division of property, allocation of marital

debt, attorney fees, costs, and all other appropriate relief. She filed an affidavit of financial

disclosure and a motion for temporary restraining orders. On June 21, 2025, the process

server completed personal service of the summons on Eichler.

{¶ 3} On June 24, 2025, the trial court issued an order scheduling the final hearing

for August 20, 2025. The order alerted the parties to bring a prepared final judgment and

decree of divorce to the final hearing, or the case would be re-set. The order also provided,

“If an Answer or other responsive pleading is filed by the Defendant in this case, the case

will be taken off of the non-contested hearing docket and will be set for a pretrial and trial.

In the event of that occurrence, a separate Order Scheduling Pretrial and Trial will be sent.”

The order noted that a copy of it was sent via U.S. mail to Eichler at 1123 Chambrey Court,

Dayton, Ohio 45458, his last-known address.

2
{¶ 4} Eichler did not appear for the August 20, 2025 hearing and did not file an answer

to North’s complaint. North and her sister testified at the August 20, 2025 hearing. North

testified that she had reviewed the proposed divorce decree and believed that it was fair and

equitable. She confirmed that she had completed and filed a financial affidavit that

disclosed all her assets, debts, and liabilities. North asked for a divorce based on

incompatibility. North’s sister testified that she had witnessed the marriage deteriorate and

believed that the divorce should be granted on the grounds of incompatibility. She agreed

that North was an honest and truthful person and had testified truthfully.

{¶ 5} At the close of the hearing, the trial court found that North and Eichler were

incompatible. The trial court then issued its final judgment entry and decree of divorce.

The court found that Eichler was properly served with summons according to law and such

service was approved and confirmed. The trial court divided the marital property and

ordered North to pay Eichler $2,000 per month in spousal support for a total of 96 months.

Eichler filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. The Record Fails to Support Eichler’s Argument that He Was Not Served

with Notice of the Final Hearing

{¶ 6} Eichler’s first assignment of error states:

The trial court erred as a matter of law when it proceeded with trial in the

absence of the Defendant, despite his failure to receive proper Notice of the

final hearing.

{¶ 7} Eichler argues that the trial court failed to provide notice of the final hearing to

him as required by Civ.R. 75(L). Despite conceding that he was properly served with the

summons and that he was in constant communication with North and her counsel during the

3
divorce proceedings, Eichler contends that the docket entries “are insufficient to show that

[he] was placed on Notice of the final hearing date.” Appellant’s Brief, p. 3.

{¶ 8} North responds that Eichler was appropriately served with summons by way of

process server at the residence where he “lived and continues to live.” Appellee’s Brief,

p. 3. North further points out that both Civ.R. 5(B)(2) and 75(L) require subsequent

documents to be served by regular mail to a party’s last known address. According to

North, the record establishes that the notice of final hearing was mailed to Eichler’s last

known address—the former marital residence—and the record is devoid “of any return mail

service to that address.” Appellee’s Brief, p. 4.

{¶ 9} Civ.R. 75(L) provides: “In all cases where there is no counsel of record for the

adverse party, the court shall give the adverse party notice of the trial upon the merits. The

notice shall be made by regular mail to the party’s last known address, and shall be mailed

at least seven days prior to the commencement of trial.” Based on the record before us,

we must conclude that the trial court complied with this rule. On June 24, 2025, the trial

court issued an order scheduling the final hearing for August 20, 2025. At the end of the

order, the court noted that a copy of the order was sent to Eichler at 1123 Chambrey Court,

Dayton, Ohio 45458, his last-known address. There is nothing in the record showing that

this mail was returned as undeliverable or that this was the incorrect last-known address for

Eichler. While it is possible that the June 24, 2025 order failed to reach Eichler’s address

via U.S. mail, there is nothing in our record that establishes such a failure. With limited

exceptions, none of which apply here, we are confined to the record before us when deciding

parties’ assignments of error.

{¶ 10} The first assignment of error is overruled.

4
III. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Equally Dividing the Parties’

Property

{¶ 11} Eichler’s second assignment of error states:

The trial court erred as a matter of law when it failed to make a finding of an

equitable division of assets on the record in the absence of the Defendant’s

presence at trial.

{¶ 12} Eichler argues that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of

R.C. 3105.171 when it did not make any findings of fact on the record and did not review the

proposed decree at the time of the final hearing. According to Eichler, the trial court was

required to make findings of fact as to the equitable division of property under the court’s

statutory obligations set forth in R.C. 3105.171.

{¶ 13} North responds that a proposed decree was submitted to the trial court prior

to the final evidentiary hearing. North points out that she testified about completing and

filing a financial affidavit that disclosed all her assets, debts, and liabilities. She also

testified that she believed the proposed decree was fair and equitable. According to North,

the decree provides for the equitable division of property and the payment of spousal support

to Eichler. North also notes that Eichler failed to identify any division of property in the

divorce decree that was not fair and equitable.

{¶ 14} A trial court’s division of marital property will not be reversed absent an abuse

of discretion. Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus.

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary or

unconscionable manner.” State v. Finnerty, 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 107 (1989).

{¶ 15} With respect to property division in a divorce proceeding, the trial court “shall

divide the marital and separate property equitably between the spouses.”

5
R.C. 3105.171(B). The starting point of a trial court’s analysis in the division of marital

property in a divorce is an equal division of assets. R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). “If an equal

division of marital property would be inequitable, the court shall not divide the marital

property equally but instead shall divide it between the spouses in the manner the court

determines equitable.” Id.

{¶ 16} Eichler does not argue that the trial court’s property division was inequitable

or that the trial court made any mistakes in the listing, valuation, or division of property.

Rather, he argues that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 3105.171 by not making “a

finding of fact that supports the determination that the division was equitable.” Appellant’s

Brief, p. 4. We do not agree.

{¶ 17} North submitted an affidavit of finances when she filed her complaint for

divorce. This affidavit set forth her assets and the parties’ incomes. Prior to the hearing,

North submitted to the trial court a proposed final divorce decree that contained the property

owned by the parties and the value of that property. Tr. 4. This submission of a proposed

divorce decree was required by the trial court’s June 24, 2025 order, which alerted the

parties to bring a prepared final judgment and decree of divorce to the final hearing, or the

case would be re-set. It is not surprising that North had the required information to draft the

proposed decree for the court given the fact that she had been married to Eichler since 2000

and had filed an affidavit of finances earlier in the proceeding. At the final evidentiary

hearing, North testified that she believed the terms in the proposed divorce decree were fair

and equitable. The trial court then divided the property equally and stated in its judgment

entry that its division of property was “fair, reasonable, and equitable.” Absent evidence to

the contrary, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to rely on North’s recitation

of the property and its corresponding value.

6
{¶ 18} Eichler could have presented contrary evidence regarding what property

existed and its value if he had attended the final divorce hearing. Or he could have

presented other evidence supporting a division of property that he believed was more

equitable. But Eichler failed to attend the hearing. “Generally, if a party fails to appear at

the final divorce hearing, ‘[a]ny deficiency claimed by appellant is explained by appellant’s

failure to appear at his final divorce hearing.’” Lakkapragada v. Lakkapragada, 2014-Ohio-

331, ¶ 59 (2d Dist.), quoting Mankin v. Mankin, 2008-Ohio-6214, ¶ 15 (7th Dist.). Indeed,

“‘[i]t is well established that where a party fails to appear at the final hearing and present

evidence concerning the parties’ assets and liabilities, the absent party may not then raise

issues on appeal concerning the weight of the evidence regarding the assets and liabilities

at issue.’” Gordon v. Gordon, 2009-Ohio-177, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.), quoting Sims v. Sims, 2000

WL 23184, *4 (8th Dist. Jan. 13, 2000).

{¶ 19} Eichler failed to file an answer to North’s complaint and failed to appear at the

final divorce hearing. Moreover, he fails to identify any evidence in the record that

establishes that the trial court made any mistakes in its division of the parties’ property or

that he was prejudiced by any such mistakes. Nothing in the record supports the conclusion

that the trial court abused its discretion in its property division or that Eichler was prejudiced

by the trial court’s property division. Therefore, the second assignment of error is overruled.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 20} Having overruled the assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

.............

EPLEY, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.

7