Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dietl v. Sipka

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 25, 2009No. 2009-T-0025Published

1DissentTrapp, Presiding Judge

{¶ 28} I respectfully dissent. The majority determined that because a lien was not perfected by the recording of the quitclaim deed, there was no perfected interest reserved by the quitclaim deed. I disagree. I believe that the transactions here should not be determined by their labels, but by their substance. Sipka’s property interest predated the separation agreement. The separation agreement is not the source of her interest in the subject real estate, but a contract in which she agreed to transfer her interest in the property except for $25,000. She originally owned a half interest in the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hembree v. Mid-America Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Ketcham v. FitchOhio Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Kain, Exr. v. WeitzelOhio Court of Appeals · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API