Linn v. Linn, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2002)
Linn v. Linn, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2002)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} "THE COURT FINDS that the parties have, pursuant to the Memorandum Agreement, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit `A', agreed to `submit pension evaluation to court along with agreed entry when valuation received back from Pension Evaluators. If values of marital portion differ parties to offset value by a lump sum payment payable to equalize value, or some agreed payment arrangement.' The parties have failed to do so.
{¶ 4} "* * *.
{¶ 5} "It is ordered that the parties will submit pension evaluation to court along with agreed entry when valuation received back from Pension Evaluators. If values of marital portion differ parties to offset value by a lump sum payment payable to equalize value, or some agreed payment arrangement."
{¶ 6} After the March 11, 2002 entry was filed, the parties received from the Pension Evaluators the marital portion values for each of their pension and retirement accounts. However, Linn challenged the marital values. As a result, each side submitted different proposed judgment entries to the trial court.
{¶ 7} After several attempts to resolve the issue, Linn filed a notice of appeal on April 10, 2002 and raises the following assignment of error: "THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE PARTIES' PENSION/RETIREMENT BENEFITS SUBJECT TO MARITAL DIVISION AS REQUIRED BY OHIO REVISED CODE
{¶ 9} Initially, we must determine whether the trial court's judgment entry is a final appealable order. It is well established that an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review an order that is not final and appealable. See Section
{¶ 10} Here, we find that the trial court's order is not final and appealable because it does not dispose of all of the claims at issue. By Linn's own admission, the trial court's entry does not resolve the division of the pension and retirement accounts. Because the journal entry Linn appealed from disposed of fewer than all of the claims and because the trial court did not certify under Civ.R. 54(B) that there was no just cause for delay, the journal entry is not final and appealable.1 Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of a final appealable order.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, 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.
Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. Evans, J.: Concur in Judgment Opinion
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.