R.N. v. E.B.

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reviews cross-appeals arising from a divorce proceeding involving the disposition of 14 frozen embryos. The court holds that the trial court exceeded the scope of the prior appellate mandate by restricting the wife’s use of the embryos to implantation in herself, while affirming the trial court’s treatment of the husband’s legally unenforceable wishes and the finality of the amended decree. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. The trial court exceeded its authority on remand by restricting Wife’s use of the embryos to implantation in herself only. The prior decision authorized Wife to use all fourteen embryos to attempt to achieve pregnancy and did not prohibit use of a surrogate.
2. The trial court’s order was final and appealable. Its use of the word proposed did not defeat finality because mislabeling does not void an otherwise final order.
3. The trial court did not violate the remand mandate by declining to incorporate all of Husband’s wishes as enforceable court orders. The mandate required Husband to be given an opportunity to state his wishes and required lawful, enforceable wishes to be incorporated; it did not require incorporation of wishes contrary to law or unenforceable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court violated the Ninth District’s remand instructions by restricting Wife’s use of the frozen embryos to implantation in herself and thereby excluding possible use of a surrogate.
2. Whether the trial court’s order was not final and appealable because it was labeled a proposed amended decree and did not adopt all of Husband’s requested wishes as court orders.
3. Whether the trial court violated the remand instructions by failing to incorporate all of Husband’s wishes into the amended decree as orders of the court.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded