On Monday, March 10, 2025, Jeremy Eberlein filed a complaint for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio against Judge Francine B. Goldberg, who presides over the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, specifically within the Domestic Relations Division. The complaint stems from ongoing legal disputes related to Eberlein’s divorce case, which has been under litigation since July 2019.
Eberlein’s complaint details a series of grievances regarding the support and restraining orders issued by Judge Goldberg, claiming they have deprived him of due process. According to the complaint, Eberlein has been subjected to various contradictory and unlawful support orders that he argues are inequitable and unjust. He asserts that these orders have resulted in severe financial strain, making it difficult for him to meet his obligations.
The complaint highlights a significant ruling made by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which reversed Judge Goldberg’s earlier decisions. The appellate court issued a mandate requiring Judge Goldberg to address several directives, including recalculating spousal and child support, vacating an unjust distributive award, and lifting restraining orders that hindered Eberlein’s income. However, Eberlein claims that Judge Goldberg has failed to comply with these directives, prompting him to seek intervention from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
In the original support order, Judge Goldberg mandated that Eberlein pay a total of $14,757.26 per month in both child and spousal support. This amount was based on an income calculation that included Eberlein’s annual bonuses, which are variable and not guaranteed. Furthermore, Eberlein contends that a restraining order issued by Judge Goldberg barred his employer from disbursing any bonuses, effectively rendering it impossible for him to fulfill the court-ordered support payments.
Eberlein’s legal counsel argues that the actions taken by Judge Goldberg not only contravene the appellate court’s mandate but also infringe upon Eberlein’s constitutional rights. The complaint points out that Eberlein has made repeated attempts to have the support and restraining orders modified or dissolved, but his motions have reportedly gone unaddressed by the court.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals noted in its ruling that the financial obligations imposed on Eberlein, juxtaposed with the restraining orders limiting his income, left him in an untenable position. The court highlighted that Eberlein was expected to pay substantial support from a significantly reduced income, limiting his ability to cover his own living expenses and tax liabilities.
In addition to the financial implications, Eberlein’s complaint expresses concern over the prolonged duration of his divorce proceedings, which have now spanned more than five years. The ongoing litigation has reportedly resulted in emotional distress and financial hardship for Eberlein, further complicating the resolution of the divorce case.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
