Case Update - Civil
The gang in Columbus didn't turn out anything last week, apparently still working through a diet of turkey sandwiches, turkey loaf, turkey pot pie, and the other ingenious ways that the repast of the previous week can be repackaged. The big boys down in DC heard oral argument Wednesday on a case involving the intriguing issue of "whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts a Maine state law meant to block the delivery of tobacco purchased over the Internet to teenagers." Think I'll wait 'til it comes out on video.
Fortunately, our appellate judges more than made up for the slack. In fact, there's so much good stuff out there that I'm going to run through the civil cases today, and the criminal ones tomorrow.
2nd District rules that in determining change of circumstances for custody modification, relevant period is from time of last ruling, not time party unsuccessfully moved for modification... 6th District affirms summary judgment for insurer in claim that defendant wife was negligent in not supervising husband who molested neighbor's child, holding that damages stemmed from husband's criminal act, not wife's negligence...
9th District holds that once husband withdrew his stipulated agreement to shared parenting on second day of trial, magistrate was without jurisdiction to grant it... 10th District affirms dismissal of lawsuit by child support claimants alleging that Ohio Dept. of Jobs & Family Services does crappy job of collecting and enforcing child support, not because they don't, but because there's no cause of action for it... If you've got a client who is threatened with eviction from a trailer park -- and who doesn't? -- this 3rd District decision is the one to read...
A "zero support" order can be modified, but a "no support" order cannot, and the latter applies where each party is residential parent of one child, and court has ordered neither pay child support to the other, says 9th District... 7th District affirms grant of new trial where plaintiff was awarded medical bills, but no non-economic damages in personal injury suit...
Next time, try "the dog ate my home equity loan." In Downey v. Downey, the 9th District rejected the husband's claim that he hadn't been guilty of financial misconduct in the dissipation of the proceeds of a home equity loan, noting with approval the lower court's determination:
"The Court does not find it credible that Defendant paid $ 80,000 cash to a man named Sam whose last name Defendant did not know, and to whom he had been introduced by another man named Tony, who [sic] last name Defendant did not know either, and that he obtained no receipt but simply handed over the cash pursuant to 'gentlemen's honor.'"
Comments