Creelman v. Creelman, 9912

• Decision Date: 28 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 9912,9912
• Citation: 8 Ohio App.2d 55,220 N.E.2d 684
• Parties: , 37 O.O.2d 56 CREELMAN, Appellee, v. CREELMAN, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 55

8 Ohio App.2d 55

220 N.E.2d 684, 37 O.O.2d 56

CREELMAN, Appellee, v. CREELMAN, Appellant.

No. 9912.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

June 28, 1966.

Calvin W. Prem, Cincinnati, for appellee.

Simpson & Jacobs, Cincinnati, for appellant.

HOVER, Judge.

This matter was considered by the court as an appeal on questions of law from a judgment and decree of the Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, wherein the wife, plaintiff, appellee herein, was granted a divorce, certain items of marital property, and alimony and expenses in a lump sum. The granting of the divorce is not in issue.

The case was heard on a narrative bill of exceptions, a transcript of the docket and journal entries of the court below, and a supplemental trnascript of pertinent filings in the court below made after the decree and judgment, and filed in this court after argument and submission of the case here.

Three assignments of error are alleged: (1) That the court determined a division of property between the parties without receiving sufficient evidence to support such finding, particularly in regard to a jointly owned piece of real estate (2) that the court failed to provide defendant, appellant herein, with its separate findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) that the court erred in ordering defendant to pay expenses and court costs, including an attorney fee to the plaintiff.

Assignment of error number two, relative to the alleged failure to file requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, is taken care of by the supplemental transcript which indicates that such findings were in fact made, albeit several months after the decree and judgment appealed from.

As to the first assignment of error, the narrative bill of exceptions sets out the inability of the parties to agree upon the value of the property mentioned above, particularly as to whether there was any equity therein in view of the fact that there was 'a large mortgage thereon,' the husband claiming that there was no equity and the wife claiming to be entitled to $1,000 as her share of the equity in the jointly owned property. The court thereupon stated that a 'Mr. John Barrett would make an appraisal of the property.' No objection apparently was taken by either party to this procedure. Such an appraisal was in fact made at $13,500, which figure is accepted by the court in its finding of fact. The court also finds at this point, and its basis for so...