Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0474-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 556
    LENTZ v. LENTZ
    No. 19804.
    Supreme Court
    On motion to certify. Supreme Court.
    413. DIVORCE AND ALIMONY — May a court after term modify a decree for alimony upon motion of one of the parties and approve an entry modifying the former decree nunc pro tunc, and if so is notice served on the opposing party’s former cousel sufficient?
    Attorneys — C. M. Addison, Columbus, for Alta Lentz; H. A. Williams and B. Gearhart, Columbus, for John Lentz.
   John J. Lentz brought this action originally in the Franklin Common Pleas against Alta F. Lentz for divorce. In May 1921 the divorce was granted and an entry was approved and filed allowing to Alta Lentz certain alimony. On May 15, 1925, John Lentz filed a motion in the same case by which he sought a modification, of the decree for alimony. Notice of the hearing of such motion was given to Alta Lentz’ Attorney. An opinion was rendered by the Judge in which the motion was overruled. The same Judge shortly after approved an entry sustaining the motion and modifying the decree nunc pro tunc.

This decree was affirmed by the Appeals.

Alta Lentz in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That the court was without jurisdiction of her because of improper service and notice.

2. That the court had no authority to modify the decree by a nunc pro tunc order.

3. That the judgment having been fully paid he was deprived of property without due process of law.