Case Name: Hebden, Appellant, v. Hebden, Appellee
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1957-09-26
Citations: 107 Ohio App. 184
Docket Number: No. 5783
Parties: Hebden, Appellant, v. Hebden, Appellee.
Judges: Petree, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 184–192

Head Matter:
Hebden, Appellant, v. Hebden, Appellee.
(No. 5783
Decided September 26, 1957.)
Messrs. Gross & King, for appellant.
Mr. Carlisle O. Dollings, for appellee.

Opinion:
Bryant, J.
Herein, we shall refer to Henrietta Jane Heb-den, appellant, as plaintiff, and Earl August Hebden, appellee, as defendant, as they appeared in the Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations.
Plaintiff has appealed to this court from an order of the court below suspending support payments by defendant upon the condition that "if plaintiff's appeal is sustained by the Supreme Court the payments suspended shall be made up. If the position of the plaintiff be not sustained in the Supreme Court then the suspension is to stand."
In the foregoing, reference no doubt is made to a previous appeal to this court in our case No. 5627, in which the same persons were parties, as here. In the earlier appeal, plaintiff complained of a court order allowing defendant to resume visitation of his children. The action of the lower court was found free from error and affirmed by all three members of this court. This decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
The matter now before us for decision is a motion by plaintiff for an order requiring defendant to pay the sum of $40 per week as child support and for expense money to prosecute this action. In support of this motion, there is filed the affidavit of plaintiff that there are three minor children, that plaintiff is without income and that the need is pressing.
The record does not disclose any notice to the adverse party, as required by Section 3105.14, Revised Code. Indeed, the notice of appeal, by date, refers to the decision of the court below father than to the journal entry of the lower court. However, defendant does not complain of either of the foregoing. Nor does he appear to dispute the facts alleged by plaintiff.
Defendant may not have seen the affidavit of plaintiff, for proof of service of it also is lacking in the record.
Defendant did file a memorandum contra to plaintiff's motion for child support and expense money. He challenges the power of this court, upon an appeal on questions of law, to grant child support or expense money only.
The objection is not well taken. The appellate jurisdiction of this court, as distinguished from its original jurisdiction, is now statutory. In Section 2501.02, Revised Code, paragraph two, will be found authority to review final orders of courts of record inferior to the Court of Appeals.
In the paragraphs of Section 2501.02, Revised Code, starting with the third and continuing until the end of the section, will be found a statement of cases in which appeal on questions of law and fact is permitted. Divorce actions are not included. The statute then states that in all other cases, an appeal on questions of law only is permitted.
Section 3105.14, Revised Code, gives express authority to the Court of Comman Pleas, upon notice, for good cause shown, and when supported by satisfactory proof, to grant alimony, expense money and orders for the custody and support of minor children. The final sentence of this section is pertinent here and provides:
"When an appeal is taken by either party, the Court of Appeals, or a judge thereof in vacation, may grant like alimony, custody, and support during the pendency of the appeal, upon like notice."
It is our conclusion that divorce cases and matters incidental thereto can not be appealed on questions of law and fact, but (;an be appealed only on questions of law. We conclude further that, in an appeal on questions of law properly before this court, this court may, upon the proper showing, grant the relief provided for in Section 3105.14, Revised Code.
It would appear that the court below felt that plaintiff should be given some punishment for not complying with its order re-establishing the visitation rights of defendant. It found it had no power to punish for contempt because of the appeal and it seems to have cut off child support payments as a form of punishment to the mother, but not to apply if she won her appeal.
On the merits of this and other questions, we express no opinion at this time. Plaintiff has made a showing which would support the order prayed for while defendant has offered no evidence to the contrary.
On this state of the record, the motion of plaintiff for an order requiring defendant to pay during the appeal $40 a week for support of his three minor children should be sustained and plaintiff should be allowed expense money in the amount of $100.
As it is not possible to measure in advance the amount of legal service which may be needed, the granting of this amount will not prejudice the filing of another application, should it be proper.
Motion sustained.
Petree, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
For report of such previous appeal, see 105 Ohio App., 461. A motion to certify the record in that case was overruled, November 6, 1957.