Court Opinion

ID: 9957417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:10:43.573832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.640242
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Machen v. Miller, 2024-Ohio-1273.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

S. KAREN MACHEN,                                    :

                Plaintiff-Appellant/                :
                Cross-Appellee,                              No. 112644
                                                    :
                v.
                                                    :
ALFRED THOMAS MILLER, JR.,
                                                    :
                Defendant-Appellee/
                Cross-Appellant.                    :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
                          AND REMANDED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 4, 2024

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                             Domestic Relations Division
                                Case No. DR-18-374625

                                              Appearances:

                Rosenthal | Thurman | Lane, L.L.C., Scott S. Rosenthal,
                and James L. Lane, for appellant/cross-appellee.

                Stafford Law Co., L.P.A., Joseph G. Stafford, Nicole A.
                Cruz, and Kelley R. Tauring, for appellee/cross-appellant.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

                  S. Karen Machen appeals from the trial court’s “Qualified Domestic

Relations Order” in this divorce case. After reviewing the facts of the case and
pertinent law, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the trial

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

              A detailed recitation of the underlying facts in this case can be found

in our opinion regarding the companion cases, Machen v. Miller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

Nos. 112453, 112454, and 112479 (the “Companion Case”). Furthermore, the four

assignments of error in this case are duplicative of four of the 18 assignments of

error in the Companion Case. Assignment of error No. 1 is the same as assignment

of error No. 2 in the Companion Case, which was sustained. Assignment of error

No. 2 is the same as assignment of error No. 10 in the Companion Case, which was

sustained. Assignment of error No. 3 is the same as assignment of error No. 17 in

the Companion Case, which was overruled as moot. Assignment of error No. 4 is

the same as assignment of error No. 18 in the Companion Case, which was sustained.

              Accordingly, and for the same reasons as in the Companion Case,

assignments of error Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are sustained, and assignment of error No. 3 is

overruled as moot.

              Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the

trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      It is ordered that appellant/cross-appellee and appellee/cross-appellant costs

share costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment

into execution.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR