Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0619-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 780
    
      GOODMAN v. GERSTLE
    No. 19955.
    Supreme Court
    On motion to certify.
    Dock. July 6, 1926;
    4 Abs. 475.
    997. REAL PROPERTY — -Where a divorce has been granted for the husband’s aggression, tne decree allowing the wife a dower interest in all property then owned, and later the parties re-marry, is the wife entitled to her dower interest upon the sale of the property pursuant to a partition suit brought by a tin ant m common with the husband?
    Attorneys — G. B. Dilley and I. G. Matthews for Goodman; W. P. Barnum and M. M. Guntefinger for Gerstle; all of Youngstown.
   This action was brought originally in the Trumbull Common Pleas by Louis Liebman, in which a partition to certain real estate was sought. . .

It appears that Liebman and Roy A. Gerstle were tenants in common of certain real estate during the time that Gerstle and one Alma C. Goodman were husband and wife. A divorce was granted to Goodman by reason of the aggression of Gerstle and in the decree a dower right in said property was given to Goodman. Subsequently, the- parties re-married and in the instant actio nGoodman claims a dower interest in said property.

The Court of Appeals found that Gerstle was the owner of an undivided one-half interest and that Liebman owned in fee an undivided interest and further that Goodman was not entitled to any of the proceeds from the sale.

Goodman, in the Supreme Court, contends:

That under the decree of the ourt which granted the divorce she should be entitled to the dower interest in said property.