From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schottenstein v. Schottenstein

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 26, 2003
98 Ohio St. 3d 1210 (Ohio 2003)

Opinion

No. 2002-0050.

Submitted February 12, 2003.

Decided March 26, 2003.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 00AP-1088, 00AP-1284, 01AP-36, 01AP-94, 01AP-95 and 01AP-227, 2001-Ohio-3987.

Kegler, Brown, Hill Ritter, L.P.A., Anthony J. Celebrezze and Robert G. Cohen, for appellant.

Baker Hostetler L.L.P., Barry H. Wolinetz and David C. Levine, for appellee.


{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Batchelder and O'Connor, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.


{¶ 2} I believe that this appeal should not be dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.

{¶ 3} The issue presented for our consideration was who has the burden of proving whether an increase in value of separate property during marriage is marital or separate property. I believe that this is an important issue upon which Ohio courts disagree. Therefore, I would not dismiss this appeal as having been improvidently allowed but would resolve the issue presented for review. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Pfeifer, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

William G. Batchelder, J., the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J.


Summaries of

Schottenstein v. Schottenstein

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 26, 2003
98 Ohio St. 3d 1210 (Ohio 2003)
Case details for

Schottenstein v. Schottenstein

Case Details

Full title:Schottenstein, Appellant, v. Schottenstein, Appellee

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 26, 2003

Citations

98 Ohio St. 3d 1210 (Ohio 2003)
784 N.E.2d 1182

Citing Cases

Jourdan v. Jourdan

However, simply because R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(b) states the trial court must determine the child's wishes does…

In re T.S.

The question is not whether the minor child has a personal interest in the proceedings relating to custody…