 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schwartz v. Osiatynski12/18/1997
d. * * * A court should consider whether the trial court's disposition of marital property as a whole resulted in a property division which was an abuse of discretion.
Here,the record reflects that Osiatynski adduced no evidence at trial supporting his claims to separate property. Further, the record reflects that the magistrate recommended, and the court ordered, a substantially equal and equitable division of property. We, therefore, find no abuse of discretion regarding this matter and, accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.
Osiatynski's eighth assignment of error states:
VIII.
THE MAGISTRATE ERRED AND ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN THE AWARD OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES.
Osiatynski contends the court erred when it granted fees to the guardian ad litem, without first acquiring expert testimony regarding reasonableness, andwhen it ordered each party to pay one-half of those fees.
Schwartz urges the court did not err in this regard.
The issue then presented for our review is whether the court abused its discretion when it awarded guardian ad litem fees and ordered the parties to share these payments.
Dom.Rel.Loc.R. 35(D) states in relevant part:
Guardians as litem shall be compensated at the rate of $85.00 per hour for in-court time and $60.00 per hour for out-of-court time * * *.
The record reflects the court complied with this rule when it awarded guardian ad litem fees and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.
Osiatynski's ninth assignment of error states:
IX.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CALCULATING APPELLANT'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION IN THAT SHE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF OHIO REV. CODE STRICTLY, AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
Osiatynski's argues the court erred when it calculated his income to be $40,000.00, since the evidence adduced at trial showed it to be only $31,855.00.
Schwartz argues that, based upon Osiatynski's trial testimony, the court did not err in this regard.
The issue then presented for our review is whether the court erred in calculating Osiatynski's income to be $40,000.00 for the purposes of calculating child support .
R.C. 3113,215(A)(3) defines self-generated income as:
* * * gross receipts received by a parent from self-employment, proprietorship of a business, joint ownership of a partnership or closely held corporation, and rents minus ordinary and necessary expenses incurred by the parent in generating the gross receipts * * *.
Here, Osiatynski testified he anticipated his 1995 gross receipts, minus ordinary and necessary expenses, to be approximately $40,000.00. In light of this testimony, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by using this figure as his gross income for purposes of calculating his child support obligation. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.
For her cross-appeal, Schwartz has presented four assignments of error for our consideration.
The first cross-assignment of error states:
I.
AFTER THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT AN EQUITABLE DIVISION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY SHOULD BE A SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL DIVISION, THE TRIAL COURT MADE A MATHEMATICAL ERROR WHICH PREJUDICED APPELLEE.
Schwartz contends that the court made a mathematical error when computing the value of the marital property, resulting in an inequitable property division, while Osiatynski denies this occurred.
The issue for our determination here is whet
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.
|
|