Court Opinion

ID: 3722379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 06:52:58.865129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:07.571819
License: Public Domain

OPINION
This is an appeal from a decision of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division granting a divorce, division of property, spousal and child support and visitation.
Appellant raises four Assignments of Error.
                                    I  THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ACTED CONTRARY TO LAW IN AWARDING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE THE PARTIES' STATE AND FEDERAL TAX REFUNDS AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO ASSUME MORE MARITAL DEBT TO ACCOUNT FOR FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00) DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BROUGHT TO THE MARRIAGE.
                                   II  THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF ELEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1100.00) PER MONTH FOR THIRTY-SIX (36) MONTHS.
                                   III  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PARTIES AGREED UPON RESIDENTIAL PARENT AND VISITATION.
                                   IV  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PARTIES REACHED AN AGREEMENT AS TO THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY.
                             I, II, III, IV
Each of the Assignments of Error is predicated upon testimony at trial, which for example, could have included oral representation as to agreement  to visitation and division of marital property.  Appellant in Assignments of Error Three and Four asserts no agreement as to these matters occurred.
Assignments of Error One and Two are based on abuse of discretion.
The record reflects appellant failed to request a transcript pursuant to App. R. 9(B) or submit a statement of evidence pursuant to App. R. 9(C).
When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.  Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197. Because appellant has failed to provide this court with those portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of the assigned errors, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below and affirm, pursuant to the directive set forth above in Knapp, supra.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
                             JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Stark County, Ohio is Affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
BOGGINS, J., EDWARDS, P.J., WISE, J. concur.