The Seventh District held that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion does not extend the appeal deadline under App.R. 4(B), even when captioned as a Civ.R. 59 motion, leaving five of six assignments of error challenging a custody modification beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
The Seventh District affirmed a transfer of custody jurisdiction from Ohio to Virginia under the UCCJEA, holding that contractual jurisdiction-retention clauses carry little weight when neither party nor the children reside in the forum county.
The Ninth District reversed the trial court’s modification of a spousal support termination date, holding that after a reversal and remand, the original pending motion need not be refiled, and the trial court cannot impose new procedural requirements that did not exist before the appeal.
The First District holds that an Illinois court retains jurisdiction to modify child support under UIFSA even after all parties and children have left the state, absent consent to another forum.
The First District affirms dismissal of a collateral attack on 2007 administrative paternity and support orders, holding the petitioner failed to prove the Department lacked jurisdiction.
The Third District affirmed the grant of permanent custody to a county agency, finding that both parents were unsuitable where the father, who was 50 when he began a sexual relationship with the 16-year-old mother, had a history of domestic violence and the mother remained unable to provide stable care.
The Eleventh District affirmed the dismissal of abuse, neglect, and dependency allegations against prospective adoptive parents of an infant with multiple serious medical conditions, holding that the trial court properly excluded an expert witness for failure to comply with Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(c) and that the dismissal was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Fourth District held that a judgment creditor cannot use the spousal exception to levy a third party’s bank accounts without a court order when the marriage supporting the levy was bigamous and void from its inception.
The Appellate Division of LA Superior Court affirmed judgment for a surviving spouse in an unlawful detainer action, holding she was an implied at-will tenant protected by Santa Monica rent control, and that Costa-Hawkins did not preempt the city’s 425% rent increase prohibition.
The Ninth Circuit holds that Younger abstention does not apply to a class action by LA County foster youth challenging systemic failures in housing, mental health, and services, because ongoing dependency proceedings are designed to protect children—not prosecute parents.