 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Longo v. Longo4/29/2005
to September 18, 2001.
{ } As there was nothing in the record indicating appellant moved the court for spousal support prior to the December, 2001 hearing, the court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded spousal support to begin in February, 2002. Appellant's fifth assignment of error is therefore overruled.
{ } In her final assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to dismiss the complaint for divorce . Appellant maintains that appellee failed to personally serve her and thus the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Here, appellee surreptitiously entered the marital home with a court appointed process server and placed the summons on the kitchen counter. In her brief, appellant admits she was home when this occurred and recognized that appellant had served her.
{ } Civ.R. 4.1(B) provides: "Personal Service. *
{ } " * The person serving process shall locate the person to be served and shall tender a copy of the process and accompanying documents to the person to be served. *."
{ } Under the circumstances, appellant does not deny that she was "tendered" a copy of the process and accompanying documents. Hence, although not a model of procedural etiquette, we do not believe service failed. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss. Appellant's sixth assignment of error is therefore overruled.
{ } For the above reasons, appellant's first, second, and fourth assignments of error are sustained. Appellant's third, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are overruled. Thus, the judgments pertaining to assignments of error one, two and four are hereby reversed and remanded in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
{ } Next, we shall address appellee/cross-appellant's cross appeal.
{ } Cross-Appellant asserts the following assignments of error on cross appeal:
{ } "[1.] The trial court erred in failing to properly determine the amount of the total child support obligation attributable to Mr. Longo.
{ } "[2.] The trial court erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction on the issue of child support .
{ } "[3.] The trial court erred in awarding Mrs. Longo attorneys fees after finding that she had engaged in financial misconduct.
{ } "[4.] The trial court erred in ordering Mr. Longo to be solely responsible for penalties and interest on the taxes which were a marital debt when his ability to access financial resources was restricted by the court's order and by the financial misconduct of Mrs. Longo."
{ } In his first assignment of error, cross-appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to properly determine the total amount of child support attributable to him. Specifically, cross-appellant contends that the determination of the total child support obligation does not end the determination of child support. Rather, the trial court is obligated to proceed to determine the adjustments and proportion of child support attributable to both parties pursuant to the specific categories set forth in the child support computation worksheet. See, e.g., Murray v. Murray (1999), 128 Ohio App.3d 662, 666.
{ } Cross-appellee does not dispute this argument and concedes the trial court must address these issues.
{ } That said, neither cross-appellant nor cross-appellee appears to dispute the actual award of permanent child support set forth in the court's December 23, 2003 judgment entry. However, it bears noting that the court ordered cross-appellant to pay a permanent monthly child support obligation of $1,666.67 per child ($40,000.08 per year). This
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|