In re Gill

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Gill

821 N.E.2d 559, 104 Ohio St. 3d 654

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 22, 2004·No. No. 2003-2017·Published

Opinions

{¶ 1} The certified question of state law is answered in the affirmative on the authority of In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466, 2004-Ohio-6777, 820 N.E.2d 335.

McFadden & Associates Co., L.P.A., and David A. Freeburg, for petitioner, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease L.L.P., and Lisa Pierce Reisz, for respondent, Frederick L. Ransier III, trustee. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

{¶ 1} The certified question of state law is answered in the affirmative on the authority of In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466, 2004-Ohio-6777, 820 N.E.2d 335.

McFadden & Associates Co., L.P.A., and David A. Freeburg, for petitioner, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease L.L.P., and Lisa Pierce Reisz, for respondent, Frederick L. Ransier III, trustee. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

In re Gill, 821 N.E.2d 559, 104 Ohio St. 3d 654 (Ohio 2004).

Pincite

821 N.E.2d 559 (In re Gill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related