 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gupta v. Gupta7/28/2000
l to constitute an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error No. 3
The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law when the court required Dr. Gupta to pay both support orders.
The appellant maintains that the trial court erred in ordering that all the temporary support orders continued after the filing of the final judgment entry of divorce. For the following reasons, we agree.
In the final paragraph of the Judgment Entry of Divorce issued by the trial court on December 29, 1999, the trial court included the following phrase.
IT IS ORDERED that all temporary orders issued by this Court shall survive the filing of this Judgment Entry of Divorce and be enforceable by this Court after the filing of this Entry.
In Colom v. Colom (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 245, the Supreme Court of Ohio held:
In a domestic relations action, interlocutory orders are merged within the final decree, and the right to enforce such interlocutory orders does not extend beyond the decree, unless they have been reduced to a separate judgment or they have been considered by the trial court and specifically referred to within the decree.
On March 26, 1998, the trial court approved the temporary orders agreed upon by the parties. The temporary orders included, among others, provisions concerning the disposition of the marital residence, temporary spousal and child support. It appears from the language of the judgment entry that the trial court intended for these temporary orders to extend beyond the final decree. However, in the same judgment entry, the trial court set forth provisions providing for the sale of the marital residence and spousal and child support. The provisions of the temporary order and the final orders are not identical. The language contained in the final paragraph of the Judgment Entry creates an ambiguity and conflicts with the provisions set forth earlier in the same decree.
It is doubtful that the trial court intended for the appellant to be responsible for spousal and child support in the amounts set forth in both the temporary orders as well as the final judgment. However, a strict reading of the Judgment Entry of Divorce has that effect. This matter must be sent back to the trial court for clarification. Accordingly, the appellant's third assignment of error is well taken.
Assignment of Error No. 4
The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law when the court unequally divided marital jewelry property.
The appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the majority of the jewelry to the appellee. For the following reasons, we disagree.
Marital property includes personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage. R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(i). Separate property includes property acquired by one spouse prior to the date of the marriage, as well as property found by the court to be a gift given to only one spouse. R.C. 3105.171(A)(6)(a)(ii) and (vii). Unless it is part of a distributive award to supplement the division of marital property, a spouse's separate property must be awarded to that spouse. R.C. 3105.171(D), Barkley v. Barkley (1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 155.
A trial court has broad discretion in determining what constitutes marital property and separate property. Krisher v. Krisher (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 159. On review, we will not disturb the trial court's judgment if the court has not abuse
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|