Legal Opinion

Holcomb v. Holcomb

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1989No. 88-381PublishedCited by 72 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to divide appellee’s pension plan and in not awarding sustenance alimony to appellant. Due to the nature of the question, we first address the property division before the award of sustenance alimony.

After a divorce has been granted, the trial court is required to equitably divide and distribute the marital estate between the parties and thereafter consider whether an award of sustenance alimony would be appropriate. Teeter v. Teeter (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 76, 18 OBR 106, 479 N.E. 2d 890, citing to Wolfe v. Wolfe…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Cherry v. CherryOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Wolfe v. WolfeOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. In Re Marriage of HuntAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
  5. Berish v. BerishOhio Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by72 opinions

  1. Berk v. MatthewsOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Kunkle v. KunkleOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Middendorf v. MiddendorfOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Brokamp v. Mercy Hospital AndersonOhio Court of Appeals · 1999

67 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