Here are some recent Ohio cases involving family law issues. This is being provided as a service to you, and you are cautioned to consult with an attorney prior to applying these cases to your particular situation, as there may be several other factors that would have to be considered in analyzing your particular situation, including other Ohio cases that are not listed here.
(Clicking on case name will take you to Casemaker link and you must have a password to access that. Clicking on the link will take you to the publicly available link.)
w Tabatabai v. Tabatabai, 2009-Ohio-3139 (9th District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2009/2009-ohio-3139.pdf
Trial court's award of a civil protection order against plaintiff's husband, entered on Form 10.01-I or other form approved by the Supreme Court of Ohio and signed by a magistrate and a judge, is a final appealable order under R.C. 3113.31(G); this decision overrules Mills. In awarding a civil protection order against victim's husband, trial court did not err since it conducted an independent review of the magistrate's findings that husband threatened to kill victim, that he was violent and that he had a number of guns.
w Curington v. Moon, 2009-Ohio-3013 (2nd District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2009/2009-ohio-3013.pdf
Trial court's grant of civil stalking protection order was proper since R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) is not void for vagueness because statute contains a "knowingly" scienter requirement. Trial court’s grant of civil stalking protection order was proper where defendant's failure to provide hearing transcript triggered presumption of regularity in trial court's proceedings and there was no plain error; fact that municipal court had issued no-contact order as part of defendant's conviction of telephone harassment did not require its being afforded jurisdictional priority, since criminal prosecutions for menacing by stalking and civil stalking protection orders are not mutually exclusive remedies, and actions that may have been subject of prior convictions may be used to prove menacing by stalking for civil protection order, R.C. 2903.211(D)(1).
w Amlin v. Amlin, 2009-Ohio-3010 (2nd District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2009/2009-ohio-3010.pdf
In modification of dissolution child support determination, reduction of obligor’s income was properly denied, despite obligor’s claimed expenditures for rental properties that resulted in a loss, since obligor produced no receipts or expense vouchers showing actual cash expenditures that were ordinary and necessary, sole evidence was an income tax return, purposes of Internal Revenue Code and child support guidelines are vastly different and trial court was not required to unquestionably accept all expenses deducted in previous tax returns.
In modification of dissolution child support determination, trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing income of $20,800 to obligee; trial court considered statutory factors, and obligee had 19 years experience and income in family business that was not likely obtainable elsewhere, had limited education and was currently employed at $9.50 per hour.
w Saylor v. Saylor, 2009-Ohio-3109 (5th District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-3109.pdf
In divorce action child support determination, trial court abused its discretion in using health insurance costs of much higher than the amount that wife testified to and that was stipulated to by the parties; it was not error for the court to equally apportion child daycare expense since their payment by wife's parents was not guaranteed in the future.
w Sinclair v. Sinclair , 2009-Ohio-3106 (4th District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2009/2009-ohio-3106.pdf
Trial court abused its discretion in improperly limiting duration of civil protection order to one year, reasoning that divorce proceeding automatically alleviated need; trial court erred in concluding divorce decree removed threat of domestic violence. Protection order is an additional remedy, R.C. 3113.31(G).
w Gartrell v. Gartrell, 181 Ohio App.3d 311, 2009-Ohio-1042 (5th District)
LinK: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-1042.pdf
In divorce action, trial court's rescission of prenuptial agreement was proper on grounds that agreement was void as against public policy by encouraging divorce or profiteering by divorce, Gross; parties entered prenuptial agreement that provided a significant sum to wife for a marriage of very short duration, and thus the terms of the agreement encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce. In divorce, trial court's rescission of prenuptial agreement was improperly based on grounds that agreement was merely negligently prepared where neither husband-attorney nor his counsel read agreement before execution, that constituted more than ordinary negligence; husband had practiced law for 20 years, faxed back changes to first draft and signed without further review, which constituted gross negligence.
w Rodgers v. Rodgers, 2009-Ohio-3059 (8th District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-3059.pdf
In ex-wife’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) postdecree motion to divide marital asset, namely ex-husband’s pension, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion since motion was not filed for more than 27 years after the divorce and property settlement where she does not argue that he hid this asset from her or committed fraud in some way, but that the pension was “undisclosed” from the court, not her; a party may not circumvent the one-year limitation applied to Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3) by seeking to vacate a judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) when the ground is duplicative of a ground subject to the time limitation, and the record reveals no reason why ex-wife or her counsel could not have discovered the pension at the time of the original proceeding or any valid reason for the 27-year delay. No evidentiary hearing was required where ex-wife did not allege operative facts that would entitle her to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) since she did not give a reason in her affidavit for waiting 27 years before requesting the relief.
w Hesseling v. Hesseling, 2009-Ohio-3116 (4th District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2009/2009-ohio-3116.pdf
In divorce action, award of spousal support to wife was too financially burdensome on husband, where spousal support, child support and other financial obligations imposed by trial court consumed more than 75 percent of his pretax income since husband would be unable to pay the support without significant economic hardship.
w Nemeth v. Nemeth, 2009-Ohio-3144 (11th District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2009/2009-ohio-3144.pdf
In divorce action, wife's motion for leave to file mandamus action is denied; wife's argument is without merit that, despite being declared a vexatious litigator, she should be allowed to bring this action to challenge the propriety of certain judgments rendered in the underlying divorce case. Wife has not satisfied the standard to be granted leave to proceed under R.C. 2323.52(F)(2); there is already a final judgment in case, wife has already appealed it and she had an adequate remedy at law, so she could not state a viable claim for mandamus.
w Underhill v. Underhill, 181 Ohio App.3d 298, 2009-Ohio-907 (2nd District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2009/2009-ohio-907.pdf
In marriage dissolution postdecree proceedings, trial court erred in concluding that husband’s failure to object to magistrate’s decision determining liability only as to property settlement but not determining amount to be paid, later divested trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to consider objections once all of the issues had been resolved; requiring objections to decisions that are interlocutory in nature does not promote judicial efficiency, and absence of an objection did not divest trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to consider objections once all of the issues had been resolved.
w Algren v. Algren, 2009-Ohio-3009 (2nd District)
Link: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2009/2009-ohio-3009.pdf
In divorce action in which son claimed ownership of closely held corporate stock, wherein wife filed declaratory judgment action to determine whether son had any interest in corporation, trial court erred in granting summary judgment for wife; existence and transfer of certificates are not required as a matter of law to prove gift of corporate shares by husband to their son since a certificate only represents a share and it is not required in order to prove ownership. However, there is a fact issue concerning number of shares son owned where husband filed gift tax returns as to the shares but some returns were unsigned, there was a stock sale restriction document stating that son and husband were sole shareholders that was witnessed by wife, corporate income tax returns indicated husband's transfer to son and there were share certificates in son's name. In divorce action in which son claimed ownership of closely held corporate stock, wherein wife filed declaratory judgment action to determine whether son had any interest in corporation, trial court did not err in finding that the restriction was binding on son, husband and company, despite claimed failure of consideration for restricted stock sales agreement; agreement has marginal effect since it is evidence only of son's ownership, agreement would have evidentiary force even if not legally binding, trial court would not be constrained by it in division of marital property since restriction applies only to voluntary transfers and not to transfers by operation of law and it was supported by consideration, as set forth in its recitals.
No comments:
Post a Comment