Leithauser v. Leithauser
Citations
- 242 N.E.3d 831
- 2024 Ohio 1497
Syllabus
The trial court erred in finding that a debt due to husband's parents was not a marital debt, as wife failed to establish the debt was husband's alone. The parol evidence rule did not apply because husband's parents were not attempting to enforce the debt rather, it was subject to equitable distribution in the court's division of marital assets and liabilities. Judgment reversed with respect to the division of marital property and remanded for further proceedings related to that issue. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Allowing [an insured] to reap the benefits of stacked coverage without having paid for stacked coverage not only seems unfair, but could compromise the legislative goal of reducing the cost of insurance.”
- emphasizing importance of the word “purchasing” in Section (c); discussing how it supports Justice Zappala’s conclusion in Rupert I that all that is required for a valid stacking waiver is the signature of the first named insured at the inception of the policy
- emphasizing importance of the word “purchasing” in Section (c); discussing how it supports Justice Zappala’s conclusion in Rupert I that all that is required for a valid stacking waiver is the signature of the first named insured at the inception of the policy
- defining \stacking\ in context of automobile insurance policy
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Huffman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.