Summary
The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed a divorce decree dividing an e-Trade account as marital property. The court held that, because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the final hearing, it had to presume the regularity and validity of the trial court’s proceedings.
Holdings
- Because Husband failed to provide the transcript necessary to review his claim that the trial court improperly classified and divided the e-Trade account, the appellate court was required to presume the regularity and validity of the trial court's proceedings and affirm the judgment.
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellate court could review Husband's challenge to the classification and division of the e-Trade account as marital property when Husband failed to provide a transcript of the final divorce hearing.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (18)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 2024-Ohio-2147, ¶¶ 32-34 (4th Dist.)(followed)
- Evans v. Evans, 2014-Ohio-4450, ¶ 26 (4th Dist.)(followed)
- Barkley v. Barkley, 119 Ohio App.3d 155, 159-161 (4th Dist. 1997)(followed)
- Wright v. Wright, 1994 WL 649271 (4th Dist. 1994)(followed)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St. 2d 279 (1978)(followed)
- In re Jane Doe I, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (1991)(followed)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984)(followed)
- Suppan v. Suppan, 2018-Ohio-2569, ¶ 21 (9th Dist.)(followed)
- Entingh v. Entingh, 2008-Ohio-756, ¶¶ 21-22 (2d Dist.)(followed)
- Middledorf v. Middledorf, 1998-Ohio-403(followed)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…