White v. Conrad, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2005)
This text of 2005 Ohio 17 (White v. Conrad, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2005)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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.
Opinion
{¶ 3} Appellee remarried on August 30, 1997. Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} Appellee filed a motion to reinstate her death benefits. A district hearing officer denied her motion, and a staff hearing officer affirmed this decision. Appellee appealed to the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and it declined to hear her appeal. Appellee then filed an appeal with the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court reversed the order, determining that because her second marriage was annulled, Appellee was entitled to receive widow's death benefits retroactive to the date they had been terminated.
{¶ 5} Appellant, the administrator of the Bureau, appealed from the decision of the trial court. Appellant raised two assignments of error in his appeal. The first assignment of error challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear the matter; the second assignment of error challenged the substance of the trial court's decision. This Court reversed the decision of the trial court on the ground raised by Appellant's first assignment of error, finding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the matter as it was not appealable pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 6} In his second assignment of error, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by determining that the annulment of Appellee's second marriage entitled her to the reinstatement of her widow's death benefits. We disagree.
{¶ 7} Appellant's second assignment of error presents questions of law only. Therefore, our review is de novo. Wayne Mut. Ins. Co. v. Parks, 9th Dist. No. 20945, 2002-Ohio-3990, at ¶ 13.
{¶ 8} R.C.
{¶ 9} Under both Kansas and Ohio law, the entry of an annulment decree renders a marriage invalid from its inception. Zsigmond v. Vandemburg
(Dec. 29, 1995), 11th Dist. No. 95-P-0006; In re Estate of Crump (1946),
{¶ 10} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
Carr, P.J. Slaby, J. Concur
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2005 Ohio 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-conrad-unpublished-decision-1-5-2005-ohioctapp-2005.