 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schwartz v. Osiatynski12/18/1997
rges the court did not err in this regard since she did not deliberately violate the visitation order.
The issue for our review is whether the court abused its discretion in failing to find Schwartz in contempt for interfering with appellant's July 29, 1996 visitation.
R.C. 2705.02 provides:
A person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished as for a contempt:
(A) Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court or an officer; * * *.
A reviewing court will not reverse a judgment regarding contempt, as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, if it is supported by some competent, credible evidence. See Johnson v. Johnson (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 713.
Here, the record reflects that on July 29, 1996, Schwartz left her son Solomon at a local Pizza Hut while she attended a job interview. When Solomon found the wait intolerable, he telephoned his father twice, but the Pizza Hut employees became concerned and notified the Parma Police Department. The police took him into custody until his parents obtained his release in person. Because of that incident, Solomon did not timely visit that evening with his father, who subsequently filed a motion to show cause, arguing that Schwartz had violated the visitation order. The magistrate, however, found no contempt of court but, rather, concluded that the incident resultedfrom Schwartz's misjudgement and the inability of these two parents to solve problems of everyday life with regard to their children.
Based upon our review of the record regarding this incident, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion when it failed to find Schwartz in contempt of court. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.
Osiatynski's seventh assignment of error states:
VII.
THE MAGISTRATE ERRED AND ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN MAKING THE DIVISION OF PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF OHIO REV. CODE 3105.171
Osiatynski argues the court abused its discretion when it determined that a loan from Cherrie Mazer, in the amount of $8,842.00, constituted a marital debt; when it failed to order an appraisal of the marital residence; when it found that Schwartz successfully traced $8,000.00 of her separate property; when it failed to specifically order an award of his separate property contained in the marital residence; and when it determined that the proceeds from his personal injury lawsuit constituted marital property.
Schwartz argues the court equitably determined and awarded separate and marital property.
The issue then presented for our review is whether the court abused its discretion in this regard.
Here, the record reflects that Cherrie Mazer testified she loaned $8,842.00 to Schwartz to pay for the children's tuition at Agnon School. The record also reveals that both Osiatynski and Schwartz stipulated to a $150,000 fair market value of the marital residence, six months before trial. The record also reflects that Schwartz owned a home in Texas prior to her marriage, and used $8,000.00 of its sale proceeds to purchase the parties' marital residence, which she successfully traced for the court. Since some competent and credible evidence supports the court's relevant determinations, no abuse of discretion occurred in this regard.
Regarding Osiatynski's claims that the court failed to award him his separate property, we note that in Baker v. Baker (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 700, the court stated in relevant part:
A court should not review discrete aspects of the property division out of the context of the entire awar
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|