Legal Opinion
Domo v. McCarthy
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 2, 1993No. 92-372PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
This appeal requires us to analyze certain provisions of the James V. Stouffer Trust and the Mary H. Stouffer Trust. Specifically, we are asked to construe and give effect to certain spendthrift provisions and determine what interests under the trusts, if any, appellant is entitled to reach as a creditor of James, Jr.
I
We are mindful that one of the fundamental tenets for the construction of a will or trust is to ascertain, within the bounds of the law, the intent of the testator, grantor or settlor. See Townsend’s Executors v. Townsend (1874), 25 Ohio St. 477; Martin v. Martin (1978), 54 Ohio…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Scott v. Bank One Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Hoffman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Washington County National Savings BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- First National Bank of Omaha v. First Cadco Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1973
- Martin v. MartinOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Matter of Trust Created Under Agreement With McLaughlinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Arnott v. ArnottOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- National City Bank, N.E. v. BeyerOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Daloia v. Franciscan Health System of Central Ohio, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- In re the Trust U/W of BrookeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Tremaine v. TremaineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.