Skip to main content

Gosink v. Hamm, (1996) 111 Ohio App.3d 495

Case Conclusion Date: 06.26.1996

Practice Area: Estate planning

Outcome: Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court affirming the Appeal filed by Attorney Lefton

Description: Appellant Julie Gosink raises one assignment of error in her timely appeal, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellee Bruce Hamm's Civ.R. 60(B) motion concerning the paternity of her son. The record demonstrates that in 1992 appellee appeared before the court, admitted paternity of the child, and waived his right to counsel and genetic tests. In 1995 appellee filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion requesting genetic testing to determine whether he was the biological father of appellant's child. The trial court ordered the testing, granted appellee's motion, and set aside his support obligation when the test results excluded appellee as the child's father. In its entry the trial court specifically stated: "Under Civil Rule 60(B) this relief may be granted where `it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.'"

See all Legal Cases