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.

Nash v. Nash

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Guernsey

August 22, 2019

MICHELE NASH nka HALL Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
NICHOLAS NASH Defendant-Appellee

          Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 14DR00439

          For Plaintiff-Appellant ROGER SOROKA JOSHUA BEDTELYON AARON JONES Soroka and Associates, LLC

          For Defendant-Appellee MATTHEW A. PETIT PATRICK J. WILLIAMS

          JUDGES Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.

          OPINION

          BALDWIN, J.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Michele Nash nka Hall appeals from the December 27, 2018 Nunc Pro Tunc Entry issued by the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas.

         STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

         {¶2} Appellant and appellee, who were married on August 28, 2010, are the parents of Z.N. (DOB 1/18/12). On September 26, 2014, appellant filed a complaint for divorce against appellee. A Divorce Decree was filed on September 21, 2015 that incorporated the parties' Separation Agreement. A Decree of Shared Parenting also was issued on September 21, 2015. Pursuant to the Decree, which adopted the parties' Shared Parenting Plan, appellant was designated the primary residential custodian and residential parent. The Decree provided that if either party relocated out of state or one-hundred fifty (150) miles away or more, the visitation provided for in the plan would be replaced with the trial court's standard long distance parenting schedule.

         {¶3} On August 17, 2018, appellee filed a Motion for Reallocation of Parental Rights. Appellee, in his motion, stated that appellant had moved to Pennsylvania with Z.N. on August 17, 2018 without filing a Notice of Intent to Relocate. Appellee, in his affidavit, stated that by the time he was ready to oppose relocation, appellant had moved back to Ohio and that on August 14, 2018 he was informed that appellant intended to move back to Pennsylvania.

         {¶4} A hearing on the motion was held before a Magistrate on September 25, 2018. The Magistrate, in a Decision filed on October 5, 2018, found that an out of state relocation three times on one year constituted a change in circumstances and found that it was in Z.N.'s best interest that appellee be named the residential parent. The Magistrate, in her Decision, stated that neither party had requested an in camera interview with Z.N. The trial court, on October 5, 2018, filed a Judgment Entry approving and adopting the Magistrate's Decision.

         {¶5} Thereafter, appellant filed objections to the Magistrate's Decision and appellee filed a response to the same. Pursuant to an Entry filed on November 28, 2018, the trial court denied the objections.

         {¶6} On December 27, 2018, the trial court filed a Nunc Pro Tunc Entry to correct the spelling of appellant's name and the case number in its November 28, 2018 Entry.

         {¶7} On January 25, 2019, appellant appealed from the trial court's December 27, 2018 Nunc Pro Tunc Entry, raising the following assignments of error on appeal:

         {¶8} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND THAT A CHANGE IN ...


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.