Izor v. Izor, 22492 (11-21-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Izor v. Izor, 22492 (11-21-2008)

2008 Ohio 6042

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 2008

DocketNo. 22492.

StatusPublished

This text of 2008 Ohio 6042 (Izor v. Izor, 22492 (11-21-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Izor v. Izor, 22492 (11-21-2008), 2008 Ohio 6042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION {¶ 1} Sheila Izor appeals from the judgment of divorce granted to her and her former husband, Randall, on October 18, 2007. Although Sheila was represented below, she has pursued this appeal without legal representation.

{¶ 2} Sheila did not file a transcript of the proceedings below but now attempts to argue that many of the findings made by the trial court were against *Page 2 the manifest weight of the evidence presented below. It is fundamental, however, that we cannot review evidentiary findings of a trial court in the absence of a transcript. Ostrander v. Parker-Fallis InsulationCo. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 72. The court in Ostrander noted that the court of appeals was correct in stating "in the absence of a complete bill of exceptions, this court has no alternative but to indulge the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment in the trial court." Id. At 74. The Judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

FAIN, J., and GRADY, J., concur.

*Page 1

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

OPINION {¶ 1} Sheila Izor appeals from the judgment of divorce granted to her and her former husband, Randall, on October 18, 2007. Although Sheila was represented below, she has pursued this appeal without legal representation.

{¶ 2} Sheila did not file a transcript of the proceedings below but now attempts to argue that many of the findings made by the trial court were against *Page 2 the manifest weight of the evidence presented below. It is fundamental, however, that we cannot review evidentiary findings of a trial court in the absence of a transcript. Ostrander v. Parker-Fallis InsulationCo. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 72. The court in Ostrander noted that the court of appeals was correct in stating "in the absence of a complete bill of exceptions, this court has no alternative but to indulge the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment in the trial court." Id. At 74. The Judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

FAIN, J., and GRADY, J., concur.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2008 Ohio 6042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/izor-v-izor-22492-11-21-2008-ohioctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack