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.

Sable v. Sable

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

June 17, 2013

BRENDA SABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MICHAEL SABLE, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2011DR01556.

For Plaintiff-Appellant TRACEY A. LASLO JOHN T. JAKMIDES.

For Defendant-Appellee BEVERLY PROCTOR-DONALD.

Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

OPINION

BALDWIN, J.

{¶1} Appellant Brenda Sable appeals a divorce judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division. Appellee is Michael Sable.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} The parties were married on April 5, 1985, in Billings, Montana. They have one son, born February 1, 2004.

{¶3} The instant divorce action was filed on December 14, 2011. At a hearing on September 27, 2012, the parties indicated to the court that they had signed a separation agreement resolving most issues. However, the parties could not agree to the extent of appellee's visitation with the child, who would receive the tax deduction for the child, and the value of the real estate. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on these issues.

{¶4} The parties' marriage was terminated by a Judgment Entry of Divorce on November 20, 2012. The court gave appellee extended visitation every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The court awarded appellee the tax exemption for the child, and valued the real estate at $85, 000.00. The court found the parties' equity in the property to be $16, 000.00, and ordered appellee to pay appellant $8, 000.00 for her share of the equity in the residence. Appellant assigns three errors:

{¶5} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING EXTENDED VISITATION TO APPELLEE DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT DOING SO WOULD DISRUPT THE CHILD'S SCHOOLWORK AND WEEKLY SCHEDULE.

{¶6} II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ASSIGNING THE TAX EXEMPTION TO APPELLEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT EVEN SOUGHT BY THE APPELLEE, AND FURTHER FAILED TO REVIEW TAX DOCUMENTS IN MAKING ITS DECISION.

{ΒΆ7} III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE FOR HUSBAND'S PAYMENT TO WIFE FOR HER ONE-HALF OF ...


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.