Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld
| Decision Date | 07 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 75-144,75-197 and 75-482,s. 75-144 |
| Citation | 47 Ohio St.2d 12,351 N.E.2d 181 |
| Parties | , 1 O.O.3d 8 ROSENFELD, Appellee, v. ROSENFELD, Appellant. PAPPAS, Appellee, v. PAPPAS, Appellant. KACIK, Appellee, v. KACIK, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Shapiro, Kendis & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., and Sheldon E. Baskin, Cleveland, for appellee Bernard S. Rosenfeld.
Snyder, Neff & Chamberlin, Owen C. Neff, and Edward J. Kirk, Cleveland, for appellant Marcia Rosenfeld.
Tyack, Scott & Colley, Paul A. Scott, Thomas M. Tyack and G. Gary Tyack, Columbus, for appellee Ann M. Pappas.
Stuart A. Benis and William S. Lazarow, Columbus, for appellant Theodore C. Pappas.
Timothy J. Koral, Cleveland, for appellee Leonard J. Kacik.
Lograsso & Longley, Peter P. Lograsso, Cleveland, Loveland & Callard and James H. Callard, Columbus, for appellant Dorothy M. Kacik.
The sole factor and consideration which distinguishes these cases from the analysis in Nokes v. Nokes (1976) 47 Ohio St.2d 1, 351 N.E.2d 174, decided this day, is that such support order was formulated by incorporating parental separation agreements into the divorce decree.
Inasmuch as under Ohio Law, a separation agreement of the parties loses its nature as a contract the moment it is adopted by the court and incorporated into a decree of divorce, we find that such distinguishing factor is of insufficient force to prevent the application hereto of the principles enunciated in Nokes.
Therefore, in light of Nokes, the judgment in case No. 75-197 is affirmed and the judgments in cases Nos. 75-144 and 75-482 are reversed.
Judgment affirmed in case No. 75-197. Judgment reversed in cases Nos. 75-144 and 75-482.
POTTER, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for HERBERT, J.
I dissent from the judgments herein for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Nokes v. Nokes (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 1, 351 N.E.2d 174 decided this day.
* R.C. 3103.03 and 3109.01 were amended by the same Act, R.C. 3103.03 now reads, in part:
'The husband must support * * * his minor children * * *.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nokes v. Nokes
...O.O.3d 1 NOKES, Appellee, v. NOKES, Appellant. No. 76-59. Supreme Court of Ohio. July 7, 1976. This cause, like Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 12, 351 N.E.2d 181, decided this day, arises out of a pre-1974 divorce decree providing for the support of minor children by their fat......
-
Hayes v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...merge with that judgment, lose their contractual character, and become enforceable only as part of that judgment. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 351 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio 1976); Greiner v. Greiner, 399 N.E.2d 571, 578 (Ohio App.1979); Bugay v. Bugay, 373 N.E.2d 1263, 1265 (Ohio App.1977). 8. However, a......
- In the Matter of Carl Arthur Moritz v. Joann Moritz, Now Joann Lindemann
-
Milton R. Moores v. Patricia F. Moores
...(Dissent cited with approval in Nokes, supra.) However, R.C. 3105.10, enacted after Miller, Robrock and Thiessen, but before Nokes and Rosenfeld, seems to indicate that the court did have jurisdiction to hear the case at hand. That statute says, at R.C. 3105.10(B): A separation agreement pr......