Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the full-text search.
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Decided?
County:   What is Decided?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Decided?
Topics and Issues:   What is Decided?
WebCite No: -Ohio-   What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 383 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Chumlea v. Chumlea 2014-CA-8The trial court acted within its discretion in awarding the appellant only $150 for attorney fees where most of her requests for fees were made in connection with post-divorce motions on which she did not prevail and where the record supports the trial court's finding that the appellee, "for the most part," acted in good faith in post-divorce proceedings. The trial court did not err in denying the appellant Civ.R. 60(B) relief with regard to the appellee's allegedly fraudulent concealment of income totaling roughly $23,000. The trial court found that the appellant had failed to establish a fraudulent scheme to hide the money at issue, and the record supports that finding. The appellant's arguments about the trial court erring in revoking and denying a constructive trust and in staying its decision to require the appellee to obtain life insurance are moot. The purpose for the constructive trust and the life insurance was to prevent the appellee from naming his new wife as the sole survivor beneficiary of his pension benefits before he retired. The appellee is now retired, however, and the appellant is receiving a coverture share of his pension benefits and if she survives him, she irrevocably will receive a portion of those survivor benefits. Because the appellee retired with benefits under "option 4" pursuant to R.C. 3307.60(A)(4), the appellant also will receive her coverture share of survivor benefits for the remainder of her life. Therefore, a constructive trust and life insurance no longer are necessary to preserve the benefits challenged in this appeal. In addition, the trial court previously retained jurisdiction to vacate the constructive trust. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4196
Chumlea v. Chumlea 2014-CA-75The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's post-divorce motion for a revised division of property order setting forth her pension benefits in a specific dollar amount (as opposed to a coverture fraction) unreduced by the impact of the appellee's remarriage. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4197
State v. Knox 25774Because the trial court referred to post-release control at plea hearing, it was in substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11, even though it failed to indicate that post-release control would be mandatory. On the record of this appeal, the defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to indicate that post-release control would be mandatory. As the State concedes, part of the restitution ordered is not supported by the record. Restitution order Reversed, judgment Affirmed in all other respects, and cause Remanded for revision of the restitution order.FainMontgomery 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4198
State v. Manley 26195Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel in her jury trial on one count of domestic violence. Appellant's conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and is supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4199
State v. Smiddy 2014-CA-148The trial court sufficiently explained Appellant's Crim.R. 11 rights during the plea colloquy. Affirmed.WelbaumClark 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4200
State v. Terrel 2014-CA-24Maximum, concurrent sentences for Aggravated Burglary and Aggravated Robbery are neither contrary to law, nor clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Trial court's failure to merge the offenses, to which no exception was taken, did not constitute plain error. Record does not support defendant's contention that restitution was ordered. Affirmed.FainMiami 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4201
In re Guardianship of Van Dyke 26465The probate court, in a proceeding under R.C. 2109.50, did not err in ordering surcharges against a predecessor guardian of a guardianship estate. The statute permits surcharges for assets conveyed away from an estate, as well as for assets concealed or embezzled. The record supports the trial court's finding that the predecessor guardian was made aware that prior court approval was required for payments from the estate made by the guardian to herself. Although the trial court did not use the word "guilty," the trial court did find that the predecessor guardian was guilty of conveying assets away from the estate. The trial court properly included, as part of the surcharge, the successor guardian's expenses in prosecuting the surcharge action. The record does not support the predecessor guardian's assertion that the surcharge will result in a double payment to the successor guardian. The trial court did not err in including, within the surcharge, the attorney's fees and expert witness fees expended in prosecuting the surcharge action. Any error by the trial court in failing to order a transcript of the surcharge proceedings has not been preserved for appellate review. The record does not support the predecessor guardian's claim that the guardianship estate has been unjustly enriched. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4202
White v. White 26658The trial court did not err in vacating an "Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order"; the order did not, in fact, reflect any agreed stipulation by the parties, and there was no existing QDRO to modify. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 10/9/2015 10/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4203
In re K.S. 26701There is evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that an award of permanent custody of two minor children to the Children's Services Agency is in their best interest. The trial court did not err in considering the report of the Guardian ad Litem, and although the Guardian ad Litem was not cross-examined, the father did not seek to cross-examine the Guardian ad Litem, who was present at the hearing. The trial court did not err in finding that the agency made reasonable efforts towards reconciliation. Trial counsel's failure to object to some questions on hearsay ground did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 10/2/2015 10/2/2015 2015-Ohio-4117
In re J.D. 26588An award of permanent custody to the Children Services Agency was supported by sufficient credible evidence. Appellant's argument about res judicata was also not properly raised, since evidence pertaining to prior proceedings is not part of the record. In addition, Appellant waived error in the conduct of the proceedings below, other than plain error, by failing to raise any objections in the trial court. There was no plain error. Finally, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance. Counsel's decisions were a matter of trial strategy, and Appellant's failure to comply with case plan requirements cannot be used in hindsight to judge her attorney's strategy. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 10/2/2015 10/2/2015 2015-Ohio-4114