Clark v. Clark
| Decision Date | 18 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 34642,34642 |
| Citation | 165 Ohio St. 457,136 N.E.2d 52 |
| Parties | , 60 O.O. 115 CLARK, Appellant, v. CLARK, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under the provisions of amended Section 3105.20, Revised Code, in any matter concerning domestic relations, the court shall not be deemed to be deprived of its full equity powers and jurisdiction.
2. In the exercise of its full equity powers and jurisdiction in such an action, the trial court is authorized to adjudicate a complete dissolution of the marriage relationship, including a determination of the rights of the parties to alimony and to a division of property.
In the Court of Common Pleas the plaintiff husband instituted this action for a divorce, for permission to visit the two minor children, for a division of the personalty and realty, and for equitable relief.
To the plaintiff's petition the defendant wife filed an answer and cross-petition seeking a divorce, custody of the children, support for the children, alimony for herself, an injunction, and further relief.
In its decree the trial court awarded the defendant wife a divorce, custody of the children and support for the children. The court also made a division of property, including the realty standing in the wife's name.
The wife perfected an appeal on questions of law to the Court of Appeals from the portion of the decree involving her realty. That court modified the decree by eliminating that provision.
The cause is in this court for a review by reason of the allowance of the plaintiff husband's motion to certify the record.
John J. Chester, Clayton W. Rose, Jr., and Robert P. Duncan, Columbus, for appellant.
Key, Butler, Harrison & Carlile, Columbus, for appellee.
The sole question before this court is whether the Court of Appeals was in error in holding that the Court of Common Pleas was without authority to decree a division of the property in this action.
The defendant, as did the Court of Appeals, relies on the decisions of this court in the four cases of DeWitt v. DeWitt, 67 Ohio St. 340, 66 N.E. 136; Marleau v. Marleau, 95 Ohio St. 162, 115 N.E. 1009; Durham v. Durham, 104 Ohio St. 7, 135 N.E. 280; and Mark v. Mark, 145 Ohio St. 301, 61 N.E.2d 595, 160 A.L.R. 608.
Paragraph one of the syllabus in the Mark case, supra, reads:
And in the opinion in the Durham case, supra, it was observed that 'this court is committed to the principle that in divorce and alimony proceedings the court in awarding alimony is controlled by statute, and is not authorized to exercise general equity powers.'
The plaintiff recognizes the effect of these earlier decisions but suggests that they are no longer controlling in view of the provisions of recently amended Section 3105.20, Revised Code, which reads in part as follows:
'In any matter concerning domestic relations, the court shall not be deemed to be deprived of its full equity powers and jurisdiction.'
It is the contention of the defendant that this amendment of 1951 is without effect and that the jurisdiction of the trial courts in divorce and alimony actions remains unchanged.
With this view this court cannot agree. When the General Assembly amends a statute, it is to be presumed that that legislation is not mere meaningless wordage. If, as stated in the opinion in the Durham case, supra, the trial courts formerly were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Hagemeier
...Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 144, 64 S.Ct. 474, 88 L.Ed. 635; Bergner v. State, 144 Conn. 282, 130 A.2d 293; Clark v. Clark, 1965 Ohio St. 457, 136 N.E.2d 52; 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3rd. Ed.), Sec. The statute being considered was a part of Sec. 109.7, Ch. 139, La......
-
Robrock v. Robrock, 35185
...and jurisdiction. This court has recently recognized this full equity power in a series of cases dealing with alimony. Clark v. Clark, 165 Ohio St. 457, 136 N.E.2d 52; Gage v. Gage, 165 Ohio St. 462, 136 N.E.2d 56; De Milo v. Watson, 166 Ohio St. 433, 143 N.E.2d It certainly must be concede......
-
Smith v. Smith
...to defeat plaintiff's right to a 'lump-sum judgment' in the instant proceeding. The first paragraph of the syllabus of Clark v. Clark, 165 Ohio St. 457, 136 N.E.2d 52, 53, reads as '1. Under the provisions of amended Section 3105.20, Revised Code, in any matter concerning domestic relations......
-
Hogan v. Hogan
...relationship, including a determination of the rights of the parties to alimony and to a division of property' (Clark v. Clark (1956), 165 Ohio St. 457, 136 N.E.2d 52). Indeed, where the decree incorporates by reference provisions found in a separation agreement, the trial court is not limi......