 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Waters v. Williams, Case No. 06-CA-88,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LICKING COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that the creditors could not maintain an action for forfeiture on the installment contract, under R.C. § 5313.07, as the debtors had paid in excess of 20 percent of the purchase price. The parties did not intend to increase the purchase price of the property when they entered into the subsequent loan agreement.
|
|||||
| Worley v. Worley, Case No. 06-CA-63,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LICKING COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3119.02, the trial court should have subtracted the spousal support award from the father's income when calculating his child support obligation. Likewise, the spousal support award should have been included in the calculation of the mother's gross income, pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3119.07(C)(7).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
