The Twelfth District affirmed the denial of an adoptive father’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate a child support order, holding that the father’s failure to raise R.C. 2151.361(B) at the original hearing or in a timely appeal foreclosed relief from the support obligation.
The Twelfth District affirmed summary judgment on res judicata grounds, holding that a prior summary judgment ruling on a premises liability claim was a final judgment on the merits even though the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed the case under Civ.R. 41(A).
The Twelfth District affirmed an award of $2,400 per month in indefinite spousal support to a disabled wife who had been a homemaker for most of a 17-year marriage, finding the magistrate properly weighed the R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) factors.
The Twelfth District affirmed a community control condition that effectively barred the defendant from his residence, finding the restriction was reasonably related to preventing future criminal conduct given the defendant’s history of altercations with neighbors.
The Twelfth District held that grand theft of a motor vehicle and attempted grand theft of a firearm found in the vehicle’s glove box are not allied offenses requiring merger, because the defendant’s act of removing the gun from the car and keeping it in her bedroom reflected a separate animus.
The Twelfth District affirmed a murder conviction arising from a shooting during a domestic dispute, holding that the trial court properly admitted the defendant’s prior violent acts as character evidence under Evid.R. 404(A) and that the State’s grant of immunity to a key witness did not render her testimony unreliable.
The Twelfth District reversed a murder sentence that included ‘lifetime parole supervision,’ holding that no Ohio statute authorizes a trial court to impose such a condition and clarifying the distinction between imposing parole terms and notifying defendants of parole eligibility.
The Twelfth District reversed summary judgment in favor of a roofing contractor on homeowners’ breach of contract claim, finding genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the work was performed in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Twelfth District reversed the trial court’s denial of a noncitizen defendant’s motion to withdraw his no-contest plea, holding that the court was required to apply the Strickland two-prong test when the motion was premised on counsel’s failure to advise of immigration consequences under Padilla v. Kentucky.