Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 108 rows. Rows per page: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Deere 2024-CA-15Appellant’s felonious assault conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanChampaign 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1275
State v. Bowen 2024-CA-43Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law; it was within the statutory range for fourth-degree felonies, and the trial court stated in its judgment entry that it had considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1273
State v. Bakos 2024-CA-40The record does not support appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel affecting the validity of his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanGreene 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1272
In re Adoption of G.A.J.-K. 2024-CA-24The probate court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Father on the issue of whether Father’s consent to Stepfather’s adoption of the child was required. We are unable to review Stepfather’s assertions that the probate court erred in failing to correct the written transcript, because the audio recording of the proceedings is not part of the record. Judgment reversed and remanded.HuffmanMiami 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1276
State v. Cobb 30170Appellant’s convictions for murder and having a weapon while under disability were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and were supported by sufficient evidence. Because the State’s challenge to an African-American prospective juror was for cause, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was not implicated. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting Evid.R. 404(B) other acts evidence. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress statements he made to police officers or in failing to merge the murder and having a weapon while under disability convictions. Under the authority of State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370, the trial court did not err by imposing a three-year sentence for a firearm specification attached to a felonious assault conviction that was merged at sentencing with the murder conviction. Finally, we cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the record did not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1274
State v. Smith 30263The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s post-conviction motion for a “plain error analysis.” The trial court did not modify his sentence without his presence in violation of Crim.R. 43. Instead, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction administratively recalculated appellant’s sentences and parole hearing date based on State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-4410. The administrative recalculation resulted in a three-year reduction in appellant’s sentences, consistent with the sentences the trial court originally imposed. Appellant was not entitled to have counsel appointed. Judgment affirmed.HansemanMontgomery 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1277
State v. Trent 30281The trial court violated four of the victim’s constitutional rights under Marsy’s Law, a notice requirement under R.C. 2930.161(A)(1), and the victim’s statutory rights to be present and heard at proceedings under R.C. 2930.09 when it failed to notify the victim of a review hearing at which it terminated appellee’s community control sanctions. Judgment terminating community control sanctions vacated; remanded for a new community control review hearing that complies with Marsy’s Law and R.C. Chap. 2930.HansemanMontgomery 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1278
State v. Wilkerson 30196Appellant’s conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer was based on sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the evidence demonstrated that appellant was the driver of the vehicle that fled from law enforcement during an attempted traffic stop. Appellant’s leaving the vehicle and hurrying into his aunt’s home after fleeing from law enforcement did not constitute obstructing official business. The record does not support a conclusion that the trial court failed to consider the factors in R.C. 2129.331(C)(5)(b) at sentencing. Judgment affirmed as to the conviction for failure to comply and vacated as to the conviction for obstructing official business.EpleyMontgomery 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1279
Northridge Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Murphy 30300Appellant did not comply with the requirements set forth in App.R. 9(A) or App.R. 16(A) in her pro se appeal. No transcript of the trial court’s proceedings was submitted for review; as such, even if she had set forth any assignments of error, we would have to presume the regularity of the trial court proceedings. Appeal dismissed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1199
State v. Hepp 30213The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for new counsel in the middle of trial. Appellant did not demonstrate a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1202
Reese v. Deuer 30273The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellees’ motion for appointment of a receiver without first holding a separate hearing, because appellant consented to the appointment of a receiver during a default judgment hearing. The trial court abused its discretion by including a provision in its order appointing a receiver that required the receiver, at the time of termination of the receivership, to turn over to appellees all the receivership property despite the undisputed fact that appellant had a one-third ownership interest in the receivership property. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.LewisMontgomery 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1205
In re K.C. 2024-CA-31Although part of the endangering children statute, R.C. 2919.22(A), imposes criminal liability for crimes committed by persons like parents and persons having custody of a child, R.C. 2919.22(B) refers more broadly to “all persons,” which includes persons who are not adult caretakers or babysitters. As such, the trial court did not err in adjudicating appellant delinquent under R.C. 2919.22(B)(5). Appellant’s adjudication as a delinquent for committing extortion was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial; the State provided all relevant information to appellant, and there was no discovery violation. Judgment affirmed.HansemanMiami 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1203
State v. Gonzalez 2024-CA-42The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to file an interlocutory appeal from an adverse suppression ruling or failure to seek appointment of a translator. Appellant’s rape and gross-sexual-imposition convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1201
State v. Joseph 2024-CA-34The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s motion to change venue; there was no evidence in the record that pretrial publicity was so pervasive and prejudicial that an attempt to seat a jury would be a vain act or that any juror was actually biased. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to use the peremptory challenges differently, as how they were used was a matter of trial strategy. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1204
State v. Carlson 2024-CA-20Appellant has served his entire prison term and is not under post-release supervision. Therefore, there is no relief that we can grant him. Appeal dismissed as moot.EpleyChampaign 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1200
State v. Savage 2024-CA-12The jury’s findings of guilty on several drug offenses were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a defense exhibit which purportedly showed that appellant had purchased legal hemp and not illegal marijuana; the document was hearsay, it was not self-authenticating, and there was no witness to authenticate it. There was also no evidence that the drugs in appellant's possession at the time of his arrest were the same substances reflected on the purchase documents. The court imposed fines within the statutory limits and properly considered appellant’s ability to pay financial sanctions. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanChampaign 4/4/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1206
Badra-Muniz v. Vinyl Carpet Serv., Inc. 29942Appellant’s application for en banc consideration fails to establish an intradistrict conflict between our 2024 opinion and prior decisions of this court, where an intervening Ohio Supreme Court decision required us to forego a line of reasoning we had followed in our prior decisions. Application for en banc consideration denied.Per CuriamMontgomery 4/2/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1280
Badra-Muniz v. Vinyl Carpet Serv., Inc. 29942R.C. 2307.241, which became effective during the pendency of this appeal, cannot be applied retroactively. Appellant has failed to call to our attention an obvious error in our opinion or to raise an issue for our consideration that was either not considered at all or not fully considered by us when it should have been. Application for reconsideration denied.Per CuriamMontgomery 4/2/2025 4/11/2025 2025-Ohio-1281
State v. Brown 30127Appellant has not established a due-process violation based on the State’s failure to preserve bloody items recovered from the scene of the victim’s kidnapping. The record does not reflect prosecutorial misconduct based on a failure to disclose the victim’s cell-phone records or the identity of her cell-phone service provider. The trial court did not err in admitting testimony about the victim’s bloody wallet and cell phone being found near the scene of her kidnapping. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellant’s convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1079
State v. Irvin 30152The trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider the agreed-upon exhibits during deliberations; the trial court’s statements to counsel and the jury reflected that it had deemed those exhibits admitted. Appellant did not demonstrate that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to cite Evid.R. 616(A) in seeking to ask a State’s witness about her pending indictment on drug charges and motion for intervention in lieu of conviction. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1082
In re Estate of Taylor 30224Because appellant’s pro se brief does not comply with the requirements of App.R. 16(A), including setting forth assignments of error or arguments supported by references to the record, we cannot address the merits of his appeal. Appeal dismissed.HuffmanMontgomery 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1084
State v. Letts 30143; 30147The trial court did not err in determining that a Five Rivers Metroparks ranger possessed territorial jurisdiction to initiate a traffic stop of the appellant’s vehicle on a public road adjacent to Metroparks property and adjacent to Miami Conservancy District property that Five Rivers Metroparks policed under a memorandum of understanding. Judgments affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1085
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Thompson 30312The trial court erred in dismissing defendant-appellant’s counterclaim for breach of contract under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The trial court did not err, however, in entering summary judgment for plaintiff-appellee on its foreclosure complaint. As for the trial court’s overruling of a motion for disqualification, appellant lacks standing to raise the issue, as the motion was filed by a non-appellant co-defendant. In addition, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over disqualification and recusal issues involving common pleas court judges. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1088
State v. Sawitke 30179Appellant’s conviction for loitering to engage in solicitation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence even though the witnesses presented conflicting testimony. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony were matters for the trier of fact to resolve. In addition, the evidence presented, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant acted purposely in engaging another in a conversation to solicit sexual activity for hire while in a public place. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1089
State v. Cline 2024-CA-14The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely and successive Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Judgment affirmed.LewisChampaign 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1080
State v. Isa 2024-CA-22Appellant’s argument that his 24.5-year sentence should actually be 23 years is barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.EpleyChampaign 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1083
Meddock v. Meddock 2024-CA-11The trial court erred in dismissing a partition action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where the land was located within the trial court’s jurisdiction and the action was not a collateral attack on the parties’ prior divorce decree. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisDarke 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1087
State v. Mason 2024-CA-20Appellant’s objection to the trial court’s finding as to his lack of remorse is precluded by res judicata; this issue could have been raised on direct appeal, and our remand was limited to a different, specific issue. The trial court did not err by failing to give notice under Crim.R. 43(A)(2) of appellant’s appearance for resentencing by video. Appellant waived his appearance in person during the resentencing hearing and did not object to any lack of notice. Appellant concedes that the trial court did not err in imposing court costs without considering his ability to pay. Judgment affirmed.HansemanMiami 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1086
State v. Frost 2024-CA-24The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress; the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and appellant was properly advised of all Miranda warnings prior to being interrogated. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss based on venue where the indictment sufficiently identified the element of venue. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 3/28/2025 3/28/2025 2025-Ohio-1081
State ex rel. Reid v. Altenburger 2025-CA-9Respondent, a probate court judge, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on relator’s mandamus claim. Relator, who was previously appointed administrator of a decedent’s estate by magistrate’s order, sought to compel the judge to issue an order making the appointment. After relator filed a complaint in the court of appeals, the judge issued an order appointing relator as administrator of the decedent’s estate. Because the relator’s objective in bringing the action was effectively achieved and there is no more than a theoretical possibility of relator being subjected to the same action again, the matter is moot. Writ denied.Per CuriamMiami 3/26/2025 4/4/2025 2025-Ohio-1207
State v. Jeffers 2024-CA-28Appellant’s convictions on three counts of felonious assault, with attendant firearm specifications, were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the element of knowingly. Appellant’s sentences on the felonious assault offenses were not contrary to law. Pursuant to State v. Beatty, 2024-Ohio-5684, only two of the three prison terms on the firearm specifications could be imposed consecutively; the imposition of the third consecutive firearm specification was contrary to law. Judgment reversed as to the third firearm specification and remanded for resentencing on that specification. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 3/21/2025 3/21/2025 2025-Ohio-989
State v. Boyd 30098Appellant’s convictions for having weapons while under disability and a firearm specification were supported by sufficient evidence. The court had jurisdiction to try appellant on the firearm specification, collateral estoppel did not bar the prosecution for having weapons while under disability, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for dismissal. The trial court did not violate Evid.R. 404(B); the court was free to consider evidence from the jury trial at the bench trial. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law and was supported by the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/21/2025 3/21/2025 2025-Ohio-984
Rupp v. Premier Health Partners 30146The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of appellees-patients on appellant-physicians' counterclaim for breach of contract. Although the court found the contract unconscionable, there were genuine issues of fact concerning whether the contract was substantively unconscionable. The court did not err in rejecting appellant’s claim for unjust enrichment where the parties had entered into an express contract. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of appellees’ billing expert or in refusing to bifurcate the trial. Appellees did not waive any defenses, and the court did not err in allowing them to amend their answer during trial; appellant was well aware of the parties’ positions and did not object at trial to amendment of the answer or to the defenses raised. The trial court also did not err in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim, as there were genuine issues of material fact as to the validity of the contract. Finally, objections to the court’s limitation of appellant’s attorney fee request to expenses associated with his counterclaim are premature because the court bifurcated the attorney fee claim, and no trial was ever held on that point, and because we are reversing and remanding the trial court’s judgment with respect to the counterclaim. Judgment reversed and remanded.HansemanMontgomery 3/21/2025 3/21/2025 2025-Ohio-985
Rupp v. Premier Health Partners 30154The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee-hospital on appellants’ claim for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The hospital had no duty to inform appellants about the billing practices of an independent contractor physician who treated appellants after they came to the hospital’s emergency room. However, the court did err in granting summary judgment to appellee-physician on appellants’ fraud claims. There were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the physician acted fraudulently and with actual malice, in conscious disregard of appellants’ rights. The court also erred in granting the physician summary judgment on appellants’ claims for breach of the physician’s contracts with the hospital. Appellants were clearly intended third-party beneficiaries of those contracts and could assert breach of contract claims. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.HansemanMontgomery 3/21/2025 3/21/2025 2025-Ohio-986
Huber v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 30205The trial court did not err in affirming the decision of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services denying appellant Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. His family’s income exceeded the income eligibility standard for benefits following his new marriage. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 3/21/2025 3/21/2025 2025-Ohio-987
In re D.L.M. 30291The $9 in costs imposed at appellant’s sentencing pursuant to Marsy’s Law was mandatory, but the juvenile court had discretion to waive it. Because appellant requested a waiver, the court erred in failing to exercise its discretion and evaluate his indigency for purposes of paying the costs. Judgment reversed and remanded as to the imposition of costs. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 3/21/2025 3/21/2025 2025-Ohio-988
State v. Smith 30246The misinformation concerning appellant’s post-release control in the plea form did not prejudice appellant and therefore does not warrant vacating his guilty plea to domestic violence. Because the trial court failed to give certain statutorily-required advisements about appellant’s duty to enroll in the violent offender database, the portion of the trial court’s judgment pertaining to that duty is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to comply with the statutory requirements. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.HansemanMontgomery 3/21/2025 3/21/2025 2025-Ohio-990
State v. Conner 30044The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress; he was not subject to a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, and his statements were voluntary. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-861
State v. Dalton 30217Appellant was convicted of obstructing official business for refusing to provide identification to police officers. Appellant’s failure to identify himself to police officers did not constitute an “act” that hampered or impeded police officers, and such an act is a necessary element of obstructing official business. As such, appellant’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment vacated.TuckerMontgomery 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-862
Goebel v. Colonial Lane Improvement Assn. 30148The trial court did not err when it granted appellee’s motion for directed verdict, which denied appellants’ request for injunctive relief. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-863
Martin v. LexisNexis 30265The trial court properly denied appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment where the alleged errors raised in the motion could have been raised in a direct appeal from the dismissal of appellant’s complaint. Judgment affirmed.HansemanMontgomery 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-864
State v. Wolfe 29759After appellant stole a car with a child inside, he was convicted of kidnapping, grand theft (auto), and petty theft. The trial court correctly found that it, and not the jury, was required to determine the repeat violent offender specification. Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping and grand theft were not subject to merger. Plain error is not demonstrated in the trial court’s denial of separate trials for appellant’s offenses. There was no evidence that the State had failed to preserve materially exculpatory evidence allegedly contained in a body camera video and, in any event, the failure to admit such evidence would have been harmless error. Appellant’s right to confrontation was not violated by the court’s admission of the child-victim’s excited utterance or by the fact that the child did not testify at trial. Appellant was not denied due process or the right to cross-examine a witness who identified him by means of a photo array by the fact that she did not testify at a suppression hearing; the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, and the witness was not required to testify. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that direct and circumstantial evidence are of equal weight. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress surveillance video footage from a nearby business; appellant’s challenge was not based upon Fourth Amendment principles but on the video’s authenticity, which went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Appellant was not denied compulsory process because a witness he subpoenaed for a suppression hearing was not properly served, and he had no right to subpoena a witness to a pretrial conference. Because appellant did not raise the issue of the witnesses’ failure to appear at trial, the issue was waived. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. The Reagan Tokes Act, under which appellant was sentenced, is not unconstitutional. However, the trial court did not provide all of the advisements required under the Reagan Tokes Act at sentencing, and it committed plain error in failing to determine restitution at the sentencing hearing. Although the Tier I sex offender/child victim offender designation arose by operation of law, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose it in a separate judgment entry after an appeal had been filed. Judgment reversed with respect to sentencing and remanded for resentencing consistent with the Reagan Tokes Act, the proper imposition of the Tier 1 designation, and proper consideration of restitution. Judgment affirmed in all other respects.HuffmanMontgomery 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-866
Boyle v. State 2024-CA-46The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because appellant’s complaint for declaratory judgment was a collateral attack on his criminal conviction. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-859
State v. Boyle 2024-CA-59The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to strike, because appellant’s motions were not “legal nullities.” They should have been considered on the merits. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyGreene 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-860
State v. Miller 2025-CA-6The trial court did not err in striking appellant crime victim’s motion to modify defendant’s bond conditions. Neither Marsy’s Law nor R.C. 2930.09 gave appellant a right to file a pretrial motion to modify the defendant’s bond outside the context of a “public proceeding” such as the arraignment at which bond initially was set. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 2025-Ohio-865
State v. Little 2024-CA-48; 2024-CA-56; 2024-CA-57The trial court erred in failing to make required findings before imposing a consecutive sentence in Case No. 2024CR0041 for having a weapon while under disability. If the findings had been made, however, the trial court would have possessed authority to order that sentence to be served consecutively to existing sentences in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518, which involved concurrent prison terms imposed upon revocation of community control. Judgments in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518 affirmed. Judgment in Case No. 2024CR0041 reversed and remanded for the trial court either to make the necessary findings or to impose a concurrent sentence.TuckerGreene 3/7/2025 3/7/2025 2025-Ohio-768
In re W.E.-N. 2024-CA-19The parties’ shared parenting plan addressed most parenting issues, but they did not agree on which parent would be the residential parent for school purposes. The trial court’s conclusion that it was in the child’s best interest that Father be designated as the residential parent for school purposes was not an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 3/7/2025 3/7/2025 2025-Ohio-767
Clayburn v. Clayburn 30261Because the trial court had retained jurisdiction over spousal support for ten years, it had jurisdiction to establish monthly spousal support even though no periodic spousal support had been awarded in the divorce decree. The trial court reasonably determined that a change of circumstances had occurred and that spousal support to the former wife was appropriate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the spousal support to continue indefinitely. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/7/2025 3/7/2025 2025-Ohio-766
Skouri v. Skouri 30181Res judicata precludes appellant from challenging the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over him. Appellant previously raised the same issue in an unsuccessful Civ.R. 60(B) motion. The record reflects, however, that appellant was not served with an April 9, 2024 notice of the trial court’s intent to emancipate the parties’ oldest child and to order him to pay a child-support arrearage. The lack of service of that notice deprived appellant of an opportunity to object to those proposed actions. As a result, the trial court’s subsequent May 13, 2024 judgment entry emancipating the child and ordering appellant to pay the arrearage will be reversed and the case will be remanded to give appellant a chance to object to the arrearage. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 3/7/2025 3/7/2025 2025-Ohio-769
State v. Wallace 30101The trial court erred in ordering restitution, over defense counsel’s objection, without holding a hearing on the amount of restitution. The trial court erred in failing to consider appellant’s ability to pay restitution. Judgment reversed and remanded as to the restitution order; judgment affirmed in all other respects.EpleyMontgomery 3/7/2025 3/7/2025 2025-Ohio-770
123