Attorney Stephen Ross King's Legal Cases

Divorce and separation

Durisala v. Durisala, 2014-Ohio-5229

Nov 26, 2014

OUTCOME: The Court of Appeals ruled that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to enter any further orders regarding Custodial accounts, and that the trial court was required to assess all costs and any reasonable attorney’s fees against Father.

On March 21, 2012, during a Divorce proceeding, Mother filed a motion for contempt against Plaintiff for non-payment of child support as ordered by the court. To corroborate the testimony of the Defend ... ant, a CSEA Financial Transaction History was submitted into showing that the Plaintiff had failed to make any child support payments from September 1, 2011 through February 9, 2012. The Plaintiff also testified, on February 29, 2012, that he had not paid any child support since August of 2011. On September 27, 2013, Judge Sieve found the Plaintiff in contempt for failure to pay child support. Despite the finding of contempt, Mother’s request for attorney fees and costs associated with the filing of the motion for contempt was denied by the Trial Court. Additionally, the court issued two orders regarding custodial funds in this matter. Mother was ordered to provide annual statements to Father on December 31st of each year regarding the balances of two custodial accounts, and Mother was ordered to preserve all funds that are in those accounts as of February 14, 2013. Mother appealed this ruling, arguing that a domestic Relations Court is without jurisdiction to issue orders regarding the disposition of property that is neither marital, nor the separate property of either Party, and that a custodial account held for the benefit of a child is neither marital [n]or separate property.

Divorce and separation

Durisala v. Durisala, 2014-Ohio-3309

Jul 30, 2014

OUTCOME: Once the trial court determined that the jewelry in this case was neither marital property nor the separate property of either spouse, it did not have jurisdiction to dispose of the property or to order compensation for its value.

Husband and Wife were married in 2001 in India. In 2009, the parties filed for divorce in Ohio. In 2010, Wife filed a motion in the trial court to join Husband’s parents as Parties to the Divorce, be ... cause she claimed that they held certain jewelry in their possession that had been given to her and was marital property. The Grandparents claimed, in response, that the jewelry had been loaned to Wife, and had not been given as a gift. They further claimed that she had the jewelry, and filed a counterclaim seeking its return. A magistrate heard testimony on the issue, and determined that the jewelry was in Wife’s possession and had not been given to her as a gift. Wife was ordered to either return the jewelry to the Grandparents or reimburse them for its value.

Child custody

In re B.J., 2009-Ohio-6485

Dec 11, 2009

OUTCOME: The First District concluded that the juvenile court erred by modifying the prior custody order because the record in this case does not evidence that a change in circumstances had occurred as required by statute.

This case involving the change of custody of a child to his parents from his grandparents was on appeal in the First District for the second time. The supreme court determined that the grant of legal c ... ustody to the grandparents was, by statute, “intended to be permanent in nature,” a characterization contrary to this court’s conclusion. And the court concluded that the provisions of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) “promote stability in the development of children and are not unconstitutional as applied when a noncustodial parent has not evidenced that a change has occurred in circumstances.” Importantly, the supreme court expressly determined that the record did not establish a change in B.J.’s circumstances. The court, however, did not enter judgment for the grandparents; rather, the court “remanded the matter for further consideration in accordance with [its] opinion.” After the remand, the case was assigned to a new judge. B.J. remained living with his parents and continued to have court-ordered companionship time with his Grandparents. The Parents urged the court to determine—based on the prior record—that they had demonstrated a change in B.J.’s circumstances as required by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). The Parents took the position that “no additional testimony was required because there was already a substantial record established before the appeal” of the change in the circumstances of B.J. The juvenile court informed the parties that it would make a determination based on the prior record and that it would not accept new evidence. The court then found that the prior record had demonstrated a change in the circumstances of B.J., the Parents, and the Grandparents. The court ultimately modified the custody order to award custody of B.J. to the Parents. In this appeal, the Grandparents argue that the juvenile court’s decision after the remand was contrary to law even though the court found a change in circumstances because (1) the finding with regard to the parents was irrelevant; (2) the finding with regard to them, as custodians, was not supported by sufficient evidence; and (3) the finding with regard to B.J. was contrary to the law-of-the-case doctrine

Child custody

In Re B. James, 2005-Ohio-4847

Sep 19, 2007

OUTCOME: The supreme court determined that the grant of legal custody to the grandparents was, by statute, "intended to be permanent in nature,"

The Ohio Supreme Court accepted an appeal "to review the constitutionality of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and to consider whether a trial court, when modifying a prior decree allocating parental rights and r ... esponsibilities for the care of children, should consider only" the best interests of the child or must additionally determine a "change in circumstances" as set forth in the statute.

Alimony

Zornes v. Zornes, 2006-Ohio-877

Feb 27, 2006

OUTCOME: The 12th District Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding appellant's annual income to be $116,018.64 for purposes of calculating appellant's child support and spousal support obligations.

In this case, the magistrate found that the calculations called for by R.C. 3119.05(D) could not be made because appellant did not provide the trial court with the exact amount of overtime appellant ea ... rned in 2003. Consequently, the magistrate extrapolated from appellant's current earnings that appellant earns $116,018.64 annually. The magistrate used that figure to calculate both appellant's child support and spousal support obligations. The trial court adopted the magistrate's findings as to appellant's annual income and overruled appellant's objection to that finding.

Appeals

State v. Connie S. Burton, 2002-Ohio-6653

Dec 06, 2002

OUTCOME: The First District Court of Appeals held that the trial court acted outside its authority when imposing as part of her community control a condition prohibiting Burton from seeing her minor son, and vacated that portion of the sentence.

The trial court convicted Burton of receiving stolen property and sentenced Burton to five years' community control with intensive supervision, drug testing, and drug treatment. The trial court also ad ... ditionally prohibited Burton from having custody of her four-year-old son during the five-year period of community control without the trial court's consent.