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.

Zupan v. Zupan

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

June 17, 2013

LISA A. ZUPAN, KNA PICIACCHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSEPH T. ZUPAN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-DIV-177.

For Plaintiff-Appellee CATHERINE D. GOLDMAN Weldon, Huston & Keyser, L.L.P.

For Defendant-Appellant BRIAN J. HALLIGAN VALERIE A. LANG, Halligan & Lang Co., LPA.

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

OPINION

BALDWIN, J.

{¶1} Appellant Joseph T. Zupan appeals a judgment of the Ashland County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, overruling his motion to find appellee Lisa. A. Piciacchio in contempt of court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} The parties entered into a separation agreement, which was adopted into a judgment entry of divorce filed on February 23, 2012. Appellant filed a motion seeking to hold appellee in contempt of court on July 27, 2012. His complaint alleged that appellee was in contempt for moving and failing to notify appellant of her address, and for failing to properly maintain the marital home during the time she occupied the home from February 23, 2012, until June 20, 2012.

{¶3} The case proceeded to an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate. The magistrate found that appellee was not in contempt of court. The magistrate found that the divorce judgment did not require appellee to notify appellant of her address, and further that appellant knew where she lived. The magistrate found that appellee was not in contempt of court for failing to maintain the home prior to vacating the premises. The magistrate found that appellant did not inspect the property prior the time of the divorce and no appraisal or evidence concerning the condition of the home was presented to establish if there was a deterioration of the home from February, 2012, through June, 2012, for which appellee would be responsible. The magistrate found that appellant chose to make repairs to maximize his profits on sale of the home, and that appellant testified that the home was in a liveable condition when appellee moved out of the home. The magistrate further found that appellant failed to mitigate his damages.

{¶4} Appellant filed objections to the magistrate's report. However, appellant did not file a transcript of the magistrate's hearing. The court was therefore limited to reviewing the magistrate's findings to determine if they were sufficient to support the conclusions of law. The court adopted the magistrate's decision as the order of the court.

{¶5} Appellant assigns three errors on appeal:

{¶6} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION WHERE APPELLEE INDISPUTABLY FAILED TO SERVE APPELLANT WITH A NOTICE OF INTENT TO RELOCATE AND FURNISH APPELLANT WITH HER CURRENT ADDRESS.

{¶7} II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONDLUCING THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS RENDERS AS MOOT SANCTIONS FOR A RESIDENTIAL PARENT'S FAILURE TO FURNISH AN ADDRESS.

{ΒΆ8} III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION BECAUSE APPELLANT DID NOT AGREE TO ACCEPT THE MARITAL REAL ESTATE IN AN ...


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.