Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vernon Lindenmayer v. Stephanie Lindenmayer

October 27, 2011

VERNON LINDENMAYER
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
STEPHANIE LINDENMAYER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 2008 DR 1286

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wise, J.

Cite as Lindenmayer v. Lindenmayer,

JUDGES: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.

OPINION

JUDGMENT: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Stephanie Lindenmayer appeals from her divorce in the Court of Common Pleas, Licking County. Plaintiff-Appellee Vernon Lindenmayer is appellant's former spouse. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

{¶2} Appellant and appellee were married in April 1997. Two children were born of the marriage.

{¶3} In August 2008, in separate cases in Licking County Juvenile Court (Nos. C2008-0639 and C2008-0640), Licking County Children's Services filed for emergency shelter care of the parties' two children, which was thereupon granted by that court. On October 27, 2010, the Juvenile Court granted legal custody of both children to appellee and terminated the agency's involvement.

{¶4} In the meantime, in the case sub judice, on September 17, 2008, appellee filed for divorce in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. The matter proceeded to a full evidentiary hearing on May 24, 2010. Appellant argued her case pro se at that time. The trial court took the matter under advisement.

{¶5} On July 8, 2010, before the divorce decree was issued, appellant filed for bankruptcy in federal court. Appellee did not join in the bankruptcy petition. A stay was thereupon placed against the divorce proceedings. On December 2, 2010, shortly after the bankruptcy was discharged, the divorce case was reactivated.

{¶6} The trial court then set the matter for a status hearing on January 11, 2011. After a brief hearing, at which appellant appeared with counsel, the trial court issued an entry permitting both sides to submit proposed judgment entries/decrees.

{¶7} On March 8, 2011, the trial court issued a final decree of divorce. The court, inter alia, divided marital property and debt, ordered no spousal support for either party, and ordered that jurisdiction over the children would remain with the Juvenile Court.

{¶8} Appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 2011, and herein raises the following ten Assignments of Error:

{¶9} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT SPOUSAL SUPPORT.

{¶10} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN THE ALLOCATION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.

{¶11} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND IS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW WHEN IT RULED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS RESPONSIBLE TO PAY ADDITIONAL DEBTS AFTER HER DEBTS WERE DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY.

{¶12} "IV. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN THE COURT DECLINED TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL PARENT STATUS, CHILD SUPPORT, HEALTH INSURANCE, AND TAX EXEMPTION AND DID NOT HAVE A HEARING TO DETERMINE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT'S FITNESS AS A PARENT.

{¶13} "V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT HAVE AN ORAL HEARING AFTER THE TRIAL BUT BEFORE THE FINAL DECISION.

{¶14} "VI. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OCCURRED WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO FILE A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES' JUVENILE COURT CASE AND THE DOMESTIC COURT CASE.

{¶15} "VII. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OCCURRED WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TURNED IN A PROPOSED JUDGMENT ENTRY TO THE COURT WHICH SUGGESTED THAT PLAINTIFF SHOULD RETAIN HIS ENTIRE 401K RETIREMENT ACCOUNT AFTER DEFENDANT SPECIFICALLY INFORMED COUNSEL THAT SHE WISHED TO ASK THE COURT FOR HALF OF PLAINTIFF'S RETIREMENT.

{¶16} "VIII. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OCCURRED WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OFFER EVIDENCE NOR DID HE INSIST ON AN ORAL HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE.

{ΒΆ17} "IX. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OCCURRED WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE ORAL HEARING SET ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.