Gibson v. Gibson
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 1072
Syllabus
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by administratively issuing an order terminating appellee's spousal support obligation before ruling on appellant's previously-filed motion to modify spousal support the time frame of the spousal support obligation set forth in the final judgment and decree of divorce had expired, and the trial court did not have authority to modify the duration of that obligation. The issue of whether the order terminating spousal support divested the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on appellant's motion to modify spousal support is not ripe for this court's review, because the trial court never rendered a judgment on that issue. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Welbaum
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Karches v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court· 1988-07-20· cited 477×
- State v. DarmondOhio Supreme Court· 2013-03-21· cited 392×
- Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court· 1992-02-26· cited 250×
- Lycan v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-02-09· cited 51×
- Pond v. PondOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-05-18· cited 8×
- Roberts v. Kauffman 4 Dayton, Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2022-09-09· cited 6×
- Rickard v. SolleyOhio Court of Appeals· 2010-06-10· cited 5×
- Gibson v. GibsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-05-10· cited 4×
- Smith v. FarmerOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-11-23· cited 4×
- Bank of Am. v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-08-10· cited 2×
- State v. Van TielenOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-08-27· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.