Case Name: SZARAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SZARAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellee
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1959-11-05
Citations: 83 Ohio Law Abs. 481
Docket Number: No. 24886
Parties: SZARAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SZARAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: HURD, PJ, KOVACHY and SKEEL, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 83
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
SZARAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SZARAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.
Ohio Appeals, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
No. 24886.
Decided November 5, 1959.
Francis E. Picklow, for plaintiff-appellant.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per CURIAM:
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, wherein the plaintiff, by petition, prayed for an order to vacate the judgment denying a divorce on her petition, the records showing that the cross-petition of defendant for divorce was likewise denied. The court, by said decree, after denying relief to either party, ordered defendant to pay to plaintiff as- support for the minor child of the parties the sum of $15.00 per week. The plaintiff relies upon the transcript of entries to demonstrate the error.
Upon consideration, we hold that an order having been made for support, that all orders made in respect thereto are valid up to and including the time that the divorce decree was denied both parties. Insofar as there has been any accrual of delinquent payments pendente lite, the judgment of the court concerning these orders must be affirmed. However, upon the dismissal of the petition for divorce, the court was without jurisdiction to make an order relating to the future support of the minor child of the parties. Insofar as the order of the court relates to future support on and after the dismissal of the divorce petition, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded with instructions to strike from the judgment the order requiring defendant to pay $15.00 per month as support for the minor child of the parties from and after the date upon which a judgment of divorce was denied.
We, therefore, affirm the judgment in part and reverse the judgment in part and remand with instructions to modify said judgment in accordance with this opinion.
See Lewis v. Lewis, 103 Oh Ap 129; Schaffer v. Schaffer, 114 Oh St 309; Haynie v. Haynie, 169 Oh St 467.
Exceptions noted.
HURD, PJ, KOVACHY and SKEEL, JJ, concur.