Schottenstein v. Schottenstein - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 98 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2003-Ohio-1088.]

SCHOTTENSTEIN, APPELLANT, v. SCHOTTENSTEIN, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 98 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2003-Ohio-1088.]
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.
(No. 2002-0050 -- Submitted February 12, 2003 -- Decided March 26, 2003.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 00AP-1088, 00AP-
1284, 01AP-36, 01AP-94, 01AP-95 and 01AP-227, 2001-Ohio-3987.
__________________
{¶1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently
allowed.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, BATCHELDER and O'CONNOR, JJ.,
concur.

PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.

WILLIAM G. BATCHELDER, J., the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for
COOK, J.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. dissenting.
{¶2} I believe that this appeal should not be dismissed as having been
improvidently allowed.
{¶3} The issue presented for our consideration was who has the burden
of proving whether an increase in value of separate property during marriage is
marital or separate property. I believe that this is an important issue upon which
Ohio courts disagree. Therefore, I would not dismiss this appeal as having been
improvidently allowed but would resolve the issue presented for review.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
__________________

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., Anthony J. Celebrezze and Robert
G. Cohen, for appellant.

Baker & Hostetler L.L.P., Barry H. Wolinetz and David C. Levine, for
appellee.
__________________
2