Legal Opinion

Martin v. Martin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1978No. 77-557PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Neill, C. J.

Appellants’ arguments are encompassed in three propositions of law, which state as follows:

1. “A trust which provides that distributions shall be made in the sole and absolute discretion of the trustee is a discretionary trust and as such is not subject to being-reached by a creditor’s bill brought by a creditor of one of the beneficiaries. ’ ’

2. “A divorced wife holding an out-of-state lump sum alimony award reduced to an Ohio judgment has no different status nor greater rights than any other judgment creditor.”

3. “A trust which terminates at a specified date and which is to be distributed…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Erickson v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
  2. Bureau of Support in the Department of Mental Hygiene & Correction v. KreitzerOhio Supreme Court · 1968

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Matthews v. MatthewsOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Domo v. McCarthyOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Scott v. Bank One Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Matter of KelleyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1983
  5. In Re WigginsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1986

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API