Legal Opinion

In re Dissolution of Marriage of Lazor

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1991No. Nos. 90-1237 and 90-1422PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.

The primary issue for our determination is whether the decree of dissolution required appellee to continue making support payments to appellant for Kimberly after her eighteenth birthday.3 For the reasons which follow, we find that it does not, and affirm the judgment of the court below.

I

Nature of the Support Obligation

There is uncertainty among the lower courts as to when the obligation of a noncustodial parent whose marriage has been dissolved to support his or her minor child terminates. Appellant, relying on Nokes v. Nokes (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 1, 1 O.O. 3d 1, 351 N.E. 2d 174, contends…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kelly v. Medical Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Aultman Hospital Ass'n v. Community Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Blosser v. EnderlinOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Nokes v. NokesOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Meyer v. MeyerOhio Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Haskins v. BronzettiOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Jarvis v. Witter, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. In re Adoption of B.I. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Hoelscher v. HoelscherOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Day v. Bloom, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2006)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006

2 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