Supanick v. Supanick

Ohio Supreme Court

Supanick v. Supanick

421 N.E.2d 1301, 66 Ohio St. 2d 360, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 325, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 520

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1186

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 421 N.E.2d 1301 (Supanick v. Supanick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Supanick v. Supanick, 421 N.E.2d 1301, 66 Ohio St. 2d 360, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 325, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 520 (Ohio 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The sole issue raised in the instant cause is whether this court’s holding in Wolfe, supra, that a reservation of jurisdiction to modify a sustenance and support award will be implied in a divorce decree, should be applied retroactively.

This issue was addressed and settled in Wolfe. In the last two sentences of the majority opinion, at pages 421-422, the court stated:

“In holding therein that modification jurisdiction continues as to alimony sustenance awards, even though based upon agreements of the parties, we perceive that immeasurable difficulties will arise in attempting to judicially determine the character of the award in a given case. Therefore, while we apply the rule here because the separation is clearly manifested, our holding herein is to be applied prospectively only to decrees incorporating separation agreements entered after the date of this judgment. ” (Emphasis added.)

While it is the general rule that the syllabus of the case states the law, “the rule does not substitute the syllabus for the court’s order or judgment, from which must be determined the issues decided by the court.” Burton, Inc., v. Durkee (1954), 162 Ohio St. 433, paragraph one of the syllabus. Although not contained in the syllabus, the court’s statement that Wolfe did not apply retroactively was part of the court’s decision. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the language was only dictum.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole issue raised in the instant cause is whether this court’s holding in Wolfe, supra, that a reservation of jurisdiction to modify a sustenance and support award will be implied in a divorce decree, should be applied retroactively.

This issue was addressed and settled in Wolfe. In the last two sentences of the majority opinion, at pages 421-422, the court stated:

“In holding therein that modification jurisdiction continues as to alimony sustenance awards, even though based upon agreements of the parties, we perceive that immeasurable difficulties will arise in attempting to judicially determine the character of the award in a given case. Therefore, while we apply the rule here because the separation is clearly manifested, our holding herein is to be applied prospectively only to decrees incorporating separation agreements entered after the date of this judgment. ” (Emphasis added.)

While it is the general rule that the syllabus of the case states the law, “the rule does not substitute the syllabus for the court’s order or judgment, from which must be determined the issues decided by the court.” Burton, Inc., v. Durkee (1954), 162 Ohio St. 433, paragraph one of the syllabus. Although not contained in the syllabus, the court’s statement that Wolfe did not apply retroactively was part of the court’s decision. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the language was only dictum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 N.E.2d 1301, 66 Ohio St. 2d 360, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 325, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/supanick-v-supanick-ohio-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack