Riedel v. Riedel

27 Ohio Law. Abs. 281, 12 Ohio Op. 307, 1938 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 995
CourtFulton County Court of Common Pleas
DecidedSeptember 16, 1938
StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ohio Law. Abs. 281 (Riedel v. Riedel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fulton County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Riedel v. Riedel, 27 Ohio Law. Abs. 281, 12 Ohio Op. 307, 1938 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 995 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1938).

Opinion

OPINION

By SLAYBAUGH, J.

This cause was originally commenced in the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations, pray for alimony; both parties were and still are, residents of city of Toledo, OhiOi

Petition filed March 1, 1936.

Issues were made up, and service duly made and completed in said Domestic Relations Court.

Numerous interlocutory orders were made upon motions filed by both plaintiff and defendant in said court after hearings thereon, and on May 19, 1936 he defendant filed in said court an answer and cross petition among other things ■ rayin. for a divorce against plaintiff. Due service of summons and copy of cross petition of defendant was made upon the plaintiff.

Plaintiff on June 23, 1936 filed her reply to the cross petition of defendant. On December 20, 1937 on motion of the plaintiff therefor, a change of venue was allowed under provisions of §12000 GC, by Judge Paul Alexander, judge of the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations and said cause was ordered removed to Fulton County, Ohio, to be tried before the Honorable Fred H. Wolf.

Thereupon on March 23, 1.938 the following entry was filed in the clerk’s office of the Common Pleas Court of Fulton County, Ohio, viz:

“In the Common Pleas Court of Fulton County, Ohio, Murva Riedel, plaintiff v Arthur F. Riedel, defendant. Journal entry, case No. 11342 in Common Pleas Court cf Fulton County, Ohio. Case No. 3996 in Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations.
“This cause of action coming on for hearing in this court, having been brought tt> this court as a result of a change in venue from the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations, and said cause of action being presented to the court upon the petition of the plaintiff, the answer and cross-petition of the defendant, and the reply of the plaintiff, which pleadings were heretofore filed by the respective parties herein, and said parties and witnesses for said parties, having been duly sworn, and having testiled, and evidence having been presented to the court,' the court finds that the plaintiff at the time of filing her petition had been a boni fide resident of Lucas County, in the State of Ohio, for more than one year prior to the filing of her petition.
“The court further finds that the parties hereto were married 'as set forth in plaintiff’s petition, and that one child, Charles Arthur Riedel, was born as the issue of said marriage.
“The court further finds that the defendant Arthur F. Riedel, has been guilty of gross neglect of duty toward this nlaintiff, and that defendant has abandoned plaintiff without good cause, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover alimony from the defendant.
“The court further finds from the evidence and testimony adduced that the defendant, Arthur F. Riedel, has failed to substantiate the charges against plaintiff contained in defendant’s cross petition, and has failed to prove any grounds for divorce against plaintiff, and that defendant’s cross petition should therefore be dismissed.
“It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that defendant’s cross petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed, and defendaht is denied a divorce from this plaintiff.
“R is further ordered that the plaintiff be, and she is, hereby awarded alimony to be paid by the defendant, and the defend[282]*282ant is ordered to pay plaintiff as said alimony the sum of sixty dollars ($60.00) each month, commencing forthwith, payable through the Toledo Humane Society, and this court retains jurisdiction of this matter for all questions pertaining to alimony.
“It is further ordered that the defendant, Arthur F. Riedel, pay the entire court costs of this action, to all of which defendant excepts.
“Fred H. Wolf, judge of the Common Pleas Court of Fulton County, Ohio.
“The foregoing journal entry was submitted to me for my approval, and a copy oí same delivered to me this 24th day of February, 1938.
“Brady & Gallagher,
“Attorneys for defendant.
“Filed March 23, 1938.”

The record shows that pursuant to said order for alimony, the defendant made partial payments thereof to the Humane Society at Toledo, Ohio.

On April 27, 1938 plaintiff by counsel filed in said Fulton County Court a motion requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be punished as for contempt of court.

Said motion was heard on August 15, 1938 before Judge A. A. Slaybaugh, of Putnam County, Ohio, assigned to hear the same, and thereupon the following order was made, viz:

“In the Common Pleas Court of Fulton County, Ohio. Murva Riedel, plaintiff v Arthur F. Riedel, defendant. Case No. 11342, journal entry.
"This cause came on for hearing on plaintiff’s motion requiring defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be punished as for contempt of court for his failure to comply with a previous order of this court which previous order provided as follows:
“ ‘It is further ordered that the plaintiff be and she is hereby awarded alimony to be paid by 'the defendant and the defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff said alimony the sum of sixty ($60.00) each month commencing forthwith, payable- through the Toledo Humane Society.’
“Plaintiff appeared, was sworn and testified but the defendant was in default of appearance though duly notified.
“The court finds from the record of the case and the testimony made herein that the defendant was legally notified of, the hearing of this motion and was in default for appearance,
“The court further finds that the order or the court as to the payment of alimony is as set forth above and that the defendant has failed to comply with said order.
“The court further finds that the defendant is and has at all times here in issue been capable of complying with said order and that defendant’s failure so to do is a contempt of this court.
“It is further ordered that the clerk of this court prepare a bench warrant for the defendant herein; that said bench warrant be issued to ,he sheriff of Fulton County, Ohio; and that the sheriff of Fulton County, Ohio be instructed to place the defendant under arrest, transport him to Wauseon, Ohio, and confine him in the Fulton County jail undj defendant pays to plaintiff all arrearages on the order of the court aforesaid and until further order of this court.
Filed Aug. 15, 1938.
A. A. Slaybaugh, J.”

The sheriff of Fulton County, Ohio in compliance with said order arrested the defendant; and thereupon the defendant by his attorney filed the following motion viz:

“In the Common Pleas Court of Fulton County, Ohio. Case No. 11342. Murva Riedel, plaintiff v Arthur F. Riedel, defendant. Motion.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Ohio Law. Abs. 281, 12 Ohio Op. 307, 1938 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riedel-v-riedel-ohctcomplfulton-1938.