Title: In re Gill

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Gill, 104 Ohio St.3d 654, 2004-Ohio-6895.] 
 
 
IN RE GILL ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Gill, 104 Ohio St.3d 654, 2004-Ohio-6895.] 
Former R.C. 5301.234 in Am.Sub.H.B. No. 163 violates the one-subject rule of the 
Ohio Constitution. 
(No. 2003-2017 — Submitted December 14, 2004 — Decided  
December 22, 2004.) 
ON ORDER from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the United States Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals Certifying a Question of State Law, No. 03-8020. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} The certified question of state law is answered in the affirmative 
on the authority of In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466, 2004-Ohio-6777, 820 
N.E.2d 335. 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and O’CONNOR, JJ., 
concur. 
LUNDBERG STRATTON AND O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 2} I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting 
opinion in In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466, 2004-Ohio-6777, 820 N.E.2d 335. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
McFadden & Associates Co., L.P.A., and David A. Freeburg, for 
petitioner, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease L.L.P., and Lisa Pierce Reisz, for 
respondent, Frederick L. Ransier III, trustee. 
_____________________