Court Opinion

ID: 9616395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:46:28.632692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:58.172805
License: Public Domain

Owsley, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from Syllabus para. 2 and the corresponding part of the opinion because it appears to me the court has adopted a rule which fosters confusion and uncertainty in the field of divorce.
On December 11, 1974, upon evidence introduced, the trial court entered an order divorcing the parties and determining matters relating to child custody. Judgment was reserved on the division of property. An order relating to division of property was entered by journal entry on January 29, 1975. Although no notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of December 11, 1974, the majority opinion by the rule stated in Syllabus para. 2 permits a review of the December 11th divorce decree. Several years ago the legislature changed the waiting period for remarriage from six months to thirty days after entiy of judgment. The effect of this opinion thwarts the legislative purpose by extending, often indefinitely, the time in which a person may lawfully remarry.
It appears to me the rule adopted in this case unnecessarily creates many difficult problems for our trial courts. I propose a rule which would require the filing of a notice of appeal from the granting of a divorce with a right to delay perfecting the appeal until all the issues in the case have been judicially determined. If no notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the entry of the divorce decree, the parties could safely conduct themselves as unmarried persons.