Court Rulings

This case involves the interpretation and enforcement of an alimony termination provision in the parties' marital dissolution agreement. Wife filed a Notice of Termination of Alimony Payments in the Chancery Court of Madison County, alleging that Husband's non-compliance with the parties' permanent parenting plan relieved her of any further obligation to pay alimony pursuant to the alimony provision of their marital dissolution agreement. Husband then filed a motion to enforce the marital dissolution agreement and for a temporary injunction. Wife subsequently moved for summary judgment to enforce the alimony provision of the marital dissolution agreement. Husband did not dispute that he failed to comply with the "Passport Provision" of the parties' permanent parenting plan but argued that his violation of the agreement did not relieve Wife's obligation to continue to pay alimony in solido. The trial court concluded that the marital dissolution agreement unambiguously provided that Wife would be immediately relieved of her total obligation to pay alimony if Husband failed to comply with his obligations under the parties' permanent parenting plan and granted Wife's motion for summary judgment. Husband appeals the trial court's granting of summary judgment, while Wife seeks an award of her attorney's fees on appeal. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's granting of summary judgment and award the Wife her attorneys' fees incurred on appeal which the trial court shall calculate upon remand.

This appeal involves a determination by a school system that children were attending the wrong schools based upon their domicile within the county. We grant the school system's motion to consider post-judgment facts indicating that the children no longer attend any school in the school system and accordingly dismiss this appeal as moot.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Jeffrey W. Tittle, of attempted aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, for grabbing the victim, placing a knife to her throat, and dragging her approximately twenty feet down a dark driveway into a scrap yard. The Defendant was sentenced to ten years for each offense, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court's decision to introduce a video from the responding officer's patrol car, the trial court's decision to permit the jury to view the video more than once, and the trial court's refusal to merge the offenses based on the principles of double jeopardy and due process. We conclude that there was no error in admitting the video, that there was no error in allowing the jury to view it during deliberations, that double jeopardy principles do not bar dual convictions for attempted aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault, and that there is no basis to disturb the determination of the jury that any removal or confinement was beyond that necessary to commit the aggravated assault. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments. We remand only for the correction of clerical errors in the judgment form.

In this interlocutory appeal, the trustee of a trust executed an investment/brokerage account agreement that included a provision requiring the arbitration of disputes. The trust beneficiary filed a lawsuit asserting claims against the investment broker, and the defendant broker sought to compel arbitration under the arbitration provision in the account agreement. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration and granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal, we are asked to determine whether the signature of the trustee on the account agreement binds the beneficiary of the trust to the predispute arbitration provision. We hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code is intended to give trustees broad authority to fulfill their duties as trustee. We also hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code gives trustees the power to enter into predispute arbitration agreements, so long as doing so is not prohibited under the operative trust instrument. We hold that the trust instrument in this case gives the named trustee broad authority and does not prohibit the trustee from entering into a predispute arbitration agreement. As a result, we interpret the trust instrument as authorizing the trustee to execute the account agreement with the defendant broker, including the predispute arbitration provision therein. Thus, under both the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code and the operative trust instrument, the trustee had authority to enter into the arbitration agreement contained within the account agreement. The question of whether the trust beneficiary in this case is bound by the arbitration provision is governed by the principle that a third party who seeks the benefit of a contract must also bear its burdens. Applying this principle, the trust beneficiary in this case may be bound to arbitrate claims against the investment broker that seek to enforce the account agreement. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and va

In this interlocutory appeal, the trustee of a trust executed an investment/brokerage account agreement that included a provision requiring the arbitration of disputes. The trust beneficiary filed a lawsuit asserting claims against the investment broker, and the defendant broker sought to compel arbitration under the arbitration provision in the account agreement. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration and granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal, we are asked to determine whether the signature of the trustee on the account agreement binds the beneficiary of the trust to the predispute arbitration provision. We hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code is intended to give trustees broad authority to fulfill their duties as trustee. We also hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code gives trustees the power to enter into predispute arbitration agreements, so long as doing so is not prohibited under the operative trust instrument. We hold that the trust instrument in this case gives the named trustee broad authority and does not prohibit the trustee from entering into a predispute arbitration agreement. As a result, we interpret the trust instrument as authorizing the trustee to execute the account agreement with the defendant broker, including the predispute arbitration provision therein. Thus, under both the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code and the operative trust instrument, the trustee had authority to enter into the arbitration agreement contained within the account agreement. The question of whether the trust beneficiary in this case is bound by the arbitration provision is governed by the principle that a third party who seeks the benefit of a contract must also bear its burdens. Applying this principle, the trust beneficiary in this case may be bound to arbitrate claims against the investment broker that seek to enforce the account agreement. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and va

Magistrate's Decision adopted that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in granting an additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement ("VSSR") where there was no evidence on which the commission could base the VSSR award. Industrial Commission had improperly applied Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-02(C)(1) and (5) to find that employer had violated a specific safety requirement. Writ of mandamus granted.

Core Terms: public record R.C. 2743.75 court of claims R.C. 149.43(A)(2) law enforcement investigatory work product photographs R.C. 149.43(A)(3) medical records. Procedural Posture: Requester objected to special master's determination that the law enforcement investigatory work product exception applied, because the special master failed to find that a crime had been committed. Requester claimed the special master also erred by finding determination of respondent's assertion of victim's constitutional right of privacy unnecessary. Overview: Requester sought police department's investigatory records of an alleged sexual assault, proffering its belief that the victim's injuries were self-inflicted and therefore the investigation was not criminal in nature. The special master determined that the records did pertain to a law enforcement matter of a criminal nature, that had not concluded. R.C. 149.43(A)(2). Review in camera confirmed that all withheld records met the definition of "investigatory work product." R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). The special master determined that records created by a sexual assault nurse examiner, held and used by the police department for its investigation, were not maintained by it "in the process of medical treatment," and therefore were not exempt as medical records. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Respondent's motion to dismiss granted.

This appeal involves an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit initiated by former employees of a hospital's Security Services Department. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital defendants on all claims, holding that plaintiff employees had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. The employees appeal. We affirm.

Breach of contract-Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, sought recovery for health insurance premium overpayments, retroactive pay, and a ratification bonus. Plaintiff was a member of a collective bargaining unit and was required to pursue administrative remedies. As the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint and granted judgment to defendant.