Schottenstein v. Schottenstein

Ohio Supreme Court March 26, 2003

Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1210 (Ohio 2003)

Batchelder, Connor, Cook, Moyer, Ninth, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

Opinion of the Court

{¶ 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.

Dissenting Opinion

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.

Reference

Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published