 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kerchenfaut v. Kerchenfaut9/5/2001
This appeal is brought by Defendant-Appellant Edith Kerchenfaut and Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant Stephan Kerchenfaut from a judgment of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas distributing the marital property of the parties. For the reasons set forth below we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
Edith and Stephen Kerchenfaut were married for over 25 years. During their marriage they ran three businesses, a farm, purchased several tracts of land and inherited land and personality. Naturally, in the course of these endeavors the Kerchenfauts purchased equipment and made investments. In addition to their businesses, the Kerchenfauts collected antiques, glassware, pewter, dolls, and purchased artwork, the disposition of much of which is currently in dispute. Complicating things further, certain pieces of the collectibles and antiques in question at one time belonged to the Stephan's deceased mother, Mary Esther Kerchenfaut, who, in her last will and testament, bequeathed all of her household goods and tangible personal property to Stephan.
On December 6, 1999 the parties appeared before a Court Appointed Magistrate for a hearing on property division. Throughout what turned out to be a seven-day hearing the parties presented a sea of exhibits, mostly in the form of inventories, property lists, photographs of property, and receipts. In addition, both husband and wife proffered extensive testimony supporting the merits of their individual property claims. On May 9, 2000 the Magistrate published a lengthy decision in which she systematically and thoughtfully distributed the parties' property.
Not surprisingly, Stephan and Edith disagreed with portions of the disbursement and both parties filed objections with the trial court. The trial court reviewed the Magistrate's findings and on October 21, 2000 overruled most of the objections save for a few minor adjustments. The trial court entered its final Judgment Entry on December 29th, 2000 granting the Plaintiff's request for divorce and adopting the Magistrate's property distribution with the aforementioned changes. It is from this judgment that the Appellant and Cross-Appellant appeal.
Appellant raises the following assignments of error:
I. The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled the Defendant/Appellant's objections to the Magistrate's decision to modify the award to Plaintiff regarding certain personal property and household goods.
II. The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled the Defendant/Appellant's objection to the Magistrate's decision which applied the wrong standard of proof in regards to the nature of dolls, glassware and antiques as marital or non-marital property.
III. The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled the Defendant/Appellant's objection to the Magistrate's decision which applied the wrong standard of proof in regards to the nature of the property sold through Heart of Ohio and Endless Endeavors
IV. The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled the Defendant/Appellant's objection to the Magistrate's decision finding that Plaintiff had not abused and dissipated marital funds
Appellee/Cross-Appellant raises two additional assignments of error:
V. The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled the Appellee/Cross-Appellant's objection to the Magistrates decision which applied incorrect values to the parties' "Chilmark" collection of pewter depictions.
VI. The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to order that the "Chilmark" collection be sold at public Auction.
First, Second & Third Assignments of Error
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|