Wolford v. Wolford

7 Citing cases

  1. In re L.A.

    2024 Ohio 1241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    "A complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a proper ground on which to reverse the judgment of a lower court in a civil case that does not result in incarceration * * * when the attorney was employed by a civil litigant." Wolford v. Wolford, 184 Ohio App.3d 363, 2009-Ohio-5459, 920 N.E.2d 1052, ¶ 32 (4th Dist.). Although this court has applied the test for ineffective assistance of counsel in limited instances of natural parents involved in permanent custody or adoption proceedings, it does not apply to a legal custodian involved in a proceeding involving the visitation rights of the natural parents.

  2. Pandey v. City of Piqua Zoning Appeals

    2023 Ohio 1302 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    See also In re A.T., 2d. Dist. Montgomery Nos. 28332 & 28355, 2019-Ohio-3527, ¶ 68 ("The constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel generally does not attach in civil actions"), citing D.O.I.T., LLC. v. Bd. of Wright Dunbar Technology Academy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23250, 2011-Ohio-4538, ¶ 5, citing Wolford v. Wolford, 184 Ohio App.3d 363, 2009-Ohio-5459, 920 N.E.2d 1052, ¶ 32 (4th Dist.) ("'A complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a proper ground on which to reverse the judgment of a lower court in a civil case that does not result in incarceration * * *.' "); Phillis v. Phillis, 164 Ohio App.3d 364, 2005-Ohio-6200, 842 N.E.2d 555, ¶ 53 (5th Dist.); Novello v. Novello, 7th Dist. Noble No. 10 NO 378, 2011-Ohio-2973, ¶ 23 ("The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant effective counsel in criminal prosecutions. There is no such guarantee in civil actions.").

  3. In re S.S.

    2023 Ohio 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    In re Yeauger, 83 Ohio App.3d 493, 498 (3d Dist.1992), quoting Courtney v. Courtney, 16 Ohio App.3d 329, 333 (3d Dist.1984). See also Wolford v. Wolford, 184 Ohio App.3d 363, 2009-Ohio-5459 (4th Dist), ¶ 11 ("[C]ontempt proceedings generally fall outside of the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.").

  4. In re Adoption of L.B.R.

    2019 Ohio 3001 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    We have also held that " ' "A complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a proper ground on which to reverse the judgment of a lower court in a civil case that does not result in incarceration * * * when the attorney was employed by a civil litigant." ' " D.O.I.T., L.L.C v. Bd. of Wright Dunbar Technology Academy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23250, 2011-Ohio-4538, ¶ 5, quoting Wolford v. Wolford, 184 Ohio App.3d 363, 2009-Ohio-5459, 920 N.E.2d 1052, ¶ 32 (4th Dist.). (Other citation omitted.)

  5. Vitte v. Vitte

    2016 Ohio 8011 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    Thus, we find that, under the circumstances of this case, appellant's due process rights were violated.Id. at *4. {¶ 12} See also Martin v. Martin, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 97–JE–11, 2000 WL 875392 (June 30, 2000) ; Mackowiak v. Mackowiak, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2010–04–009, 2011-Ohio-3013, 2011 WL 2448997 ; Wolford v. Wolford, 184 Ohio App.3d 363, 2009-Ohio-5459, 920 N.E.2d 1052. In Martin, the court examined the specific notice requirements of R.C. 2705.031 and Yeauger, supra, noting:

  6. D.O.I.T., L.L.C v. Bd. of Wright Dunbar Technology Acad.

    2011 Ohio 4538 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

    "`A complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a proper ground on which to reverse the judgment of a lower court in a civil case that does not result in incarceration * * * when the attorney was employed by a civil litigant.'" Wolford v. Wolford, 184 Ohio App3d 363, 2009-Ohio-5459, ¶ 32, quoting Phillis v. Phillis, 164 Ohio App.3d 364, 2005-Ohio-6200, ¶ 53; see, also, Novello v. Novello, Noble App. No. 10 NO 378, 2011-Ohio-2973, ¶ 23 ("The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant effective counsel in criminal prosecutions. There is no such guarantee in civil actions.").

  7. Castanias v. Castanias

    2010 Ohio 4300 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

    {¶ 12} Castanias also argues that in order for service of summons to be effective, he had to be personally served with the summons. However, the cases on which he relies in support of this argument, Wolford v. Wolford, 184 Ohio App.3d 363, 2009-Ohio-5459, and Hansen v. Hansen (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 216, are clearly distinguishable from this one. Wolford and Hansen merely held that in order for service of summons to be perfected, the service must be made on the party himself rather than the party's attorney.