Skip to main content

Ryan v. Ryan

Citations

  • 2024 Ohio 5691

Syllabus

Judgment in case No. 23AP-554 affirmed in part and reversed in part; judgment in case No. 24AP-72 vacated. The domestic relations court possessed authority to proceed with trial while appellant's appeal from the court's entry denying his motion for default judgment against a non-party remained pending. The court lacked jurisdiction to rule on appellant's Civ.R. 59 motion for new trial after appellant perfected his appeal from the court's divorce decree. The court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and therefore had jurisdiction to address appellee's counterclaim for divorce. The domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction would preclude a federal court from hearing appellee's counterclaim for divorce. The court did not continue the evidentiary hearing scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on July 18, 2023 to 12:15 p.m. that day. The court was reasonably delayed with other matters on its docket and called the case one hour after the scheduled hearing time. Because appellant had notice of the 11:00 a.m. hearing on July 18, 2023, but chose not to attend, appellant waived his opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The court acted within its discretion to strike the hearing scheduled for July 19, 2023. The court did not err by admitting the remote testimony of appellee's father and did not plainly err by admitting the testimony of appellee's daughter-in-law. The affidavits appellant filed on July 18, 2023 were inadmissible hearsay. The court properly found the Roxbury Rd. property to be a marital asset with associated marital debt at the time of purchase, and properly found the money appellee received from her father in 2012 to be a separate gift to her. Although appellee used a portion of her separate funds to pay off the mortgage on the Roxbury Rd. property and get the property out of foreclosure, because appellee failed to demonstrate there was no equity in the Roxbury Rd. property at the time she paid off the mortgage, the court erred by finding th

Judges: Edelstein

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

77 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.