Griste v. Griste, s. 36299
| Decision Date | 15 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | 36300,Nos. 36299,s. 36299 |
| Citation | 167 N.E.2d 924,171 Ohio St. 160 |
| Parties | , 12 O.O.2d 176 GRISTE, Appellant, v. GRISTE, Appellee (two cases). |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under the provisions of 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. The exercise of the full equity powers and jurisdiction in an alimony or divorce action includes the authority to determine the rights of the parties to alimony and a division of property. (Clark v. Clark, 165 Ohio St. 457, 136 N.E.2d 52, approved and followed).
Three actions are pending between the plaintiff wife and her defendant husband.
In the first the wife has sued for alimony for herself, custody of their minor child, support for the child, and 'that upon final hearing she be decreed reasonable permanent alimony and expenses out of the real and personal property and future earnings of defendant, that her separate property be decreed to her, * * * and for such other and further relief to which she may be entitled at law or in equity.' The defendant husband filed an answer and a cross-petition for a divorce. This action is still pending in the Court of Common Pleas.
Subsequently the plaintiff wife instituted two additional actions in the same court seeking recovery of her half interest in personalty in the one and realty in the other.
The defendant husband then moved to dismiss the two new actions on the ground 'that there is pending before this same court a prior case being case No. 55967 upon the docket of this court wherein Loretta C. Griste is plaintiff and Charles G. Griste is defendant, which prior proceedings involve the same subject matter and the same parties sought to be involved in this action.' The trial court granted the defendant's motions in the following entry:
'Motion of defendant, Charles Griste, to dismiss the within case granted on the grounds that the subject matter, to wit, the division of the property, will be decided by this court in case No. 55967, an alimony only case now pending in this court involving the idential parties (see decree in said case).'
On appeals by the plaintiff to the Court of Appeals on questions of law, the judgments of the trial court were affirmed.
The Court of Appeals then certified the causes to this court for review and final determination on the ground that the judgments are in conflict with a judgment pronounced on the same question by another Court of Appeals of this state.
Levin & Levin, Lorain, for appellant.
Dan K. Cook, Lorain, for appellee.
The Court of Appeals stated the question here involved as follows:
'Where there is pending in the Common Pleas Court an action for alimony only, filed by a wife against her husband, may the wife thereafter maintain a separate action against her husband for an alleged interest in property held by her husband, but claimed to have been purchased with her funds?
'We might state the problem more succinctly by asking whether, upon a petition by the wife for alimony only, the trial court is authorized to make an award of a portion of the property standing in the name of the husband, but claimed to be the property of the wife?'
In seeking the answer to the question, it is important to observe Section 3105.20, Revised Code, the last sentence of which has read since 1951:
'In any matter concerning domestic relations, the court shall not be deemed to be deprived of its full equity powers and jurisdiction.'
This language was construed in the case of Clark v. Clark, 165 Ohio St. 457, 136 N.E.2d 52, 53, in which the syllabus reads as follows:
'1. Under the provisions of amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prentice v. Prentice
...powers and jurisdiction are given by statute the trial court in domestic relations cases may divide the property. Griste v. Griste, 171 Ohio St. 160, 167 N.E.2d 924, 926 (1960); Piana v. Piana, 239 S.C. 367, 123 S.E.2d 297 (1961); Brewer v. Brewer, 117 Ohio App. 263, 192 N.E.2d 106 (1962). ......
-
Bentz v. Bentz
...for alimony, she cannot thereafter maintain action for alimony); Petersine v. Thomas, 1876, 28 Ohio St. 596, 599; Griste v. Griste, 1960, 171 Ohio St. 160, 167 N.E.2d 924. See also annotation, 43 A.L.R.2d In determining what obligations shall be imposed upon a husband by a decree for divorc......
-
State ex rel. Judson v. Spahr
...does include the authority to determine the rights of the parties to alimony and a division of property. Griste v. Griste (1960), 171 Ohio St. 160, 12 O.O.2d 176, 167 N.E.2d 924, paragraph two of the syllabus; Clark v. Clark (1956), 165 Ohio St. 457, 60 O.O. 115, 136 N.E.2d In this case, th......
-
Gieg v. Gieg
...one for divorce. Goetzel v. Goetzel (1959), 169 Ohio St. 350, 159 N.E.2d 751 , paragraph one of syllabus; Griste v. Griste (1960), 171 Ohio St. 160, at 162-163, 167 N.E.2d 924 . R.C. 3105.18(A) provides that "alimony may be allowed in real or personal property." As stated in Wolfe v. Wolfe ......