Case Name: Rosenfeld, Appellee, v. Rosenfeld, Appellant; Pappas, Appellee, v. Pappas, Appellant; Kacik, Appellee, v. Kacik, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1976-07-07
Citations: 47 Ohio St. 2d 12
Docket Number: Nos. 75-144, 75-197 and 75-482
Parties: Rosenfeld, Appellee, v. Rosenfeld, Appellant. Pappas, Appellee, v. Pappas, Appellant. Kacik, Appellee, v. Kacik, Appellant.
Judges: 0 ’Neill,, C. J.," Potter, Stern, W.' Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.. .
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Second Series
Volume: 47
Pages: 12–14

Head Matter:
Rosenfeld, Appellee, v. Rosenfeld, Appellant. Pappas, Appellee, v. Pappas, Appellant. Kacik, Appellee, v. Kacik, Appellant.
[Cite as Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 12.]
(Nos. 75-144, 75-197 and 75-482
Decided July 7, 1976.)
Shapiro. Kendis £ Assoc. Co., L. P. A., and Mr. Sheldon E. Baskin, for appellee Bernard S. Rosenfeld.
Messrs. Snyder, Neff £ Chamberlin, Mr. Owen C. Neff and Mr. Edward J. Kirk, for appellant Marcia Rosenfeld.
Messrs. Tyack, Scott é Colley, Mr. Paul Scott, Mr. Thomas M. Tyack and Mr. G. Gary Tyack, for appelleé Ann M. Pappas.
Mr! Stuart ¿41 Penis and 'Mr: William S. Lasarow, for appellant-Theodore C; Pappas: ■-
- Mr. Timothy J. Kora.l, for appellee Leonard J. Kacik:
Messrs. Lograsso & Longley, Mr. Peter P. Lograsso, Messrs. Loveland & Callard and Mr. James II. Callará, for appellant Dorothy M. Kacik.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The sole factor and consideration which distinguishes these cases from the analysis in Nokes v. Nokes (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 1, .decided this day, -is that such support order was formulated by incorporating parental separation agreements -into .the divorce decree. :
Inasmuch as under Ohio law, a separation agreement of the parties-loses its nature, as a .contract the'moment it is adopted by the court and incorporated into a decree of divorce, we find that such distinguishing factor is of insufficient force to prevent the application hereto of the principles enunciated in N olees.
Therefore,-in light-of Nglees, the judgment in case No. 75-197 is affirmed and'the judgments in cases Nos. 75-144 and 75-482 are reversed.
Judgment affirmed in case No. 75-197-.
Judgments reversed in cases Nos. 75-144 and 75-482.
0 'Neill,, C. J.," Potter, Stern, W.' Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.. .
Corrigan and Celebrezze,-JJ., dissent.
Potter, J., of the Sixth Appellate District- .sitting fob Herbert, J. ,