modification clause in Ohio

2024As set forth in our discussion of Husband’s fourth assigned error, “‘[t]he term “abuse of discretion” is one of art, “connoting judgment exercised by a court, which does not comport with reason or the record.”’” Willoughby at ¶ 24 , quoting In re V.M.B., 2013-Ohio-4298, at ¶ 26 , quoting Underwood, 2009-Ohio-2089, at ¶ 30 , citing Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. at 676-678 . {¶51} In support of his third assigned error, Husband argues that “taking away the modification clause in the original agreement, only allowing for a future increase in the spousal support amount, coupled with only one party ordere

2024As set forth in our discussion of Husband’s fourth assigned error, “‘[t]he term “abuse of discretion” is one of art, “connoting judgment exercised by a court, which does not comport with reason or the record.”’” Willoughby at ¶ 24 , quoting In re V.M.B., 2013-Ohio-4298, at ¶ 26 , quoting Underwood, 2009-Ohio-2089, at ¶ 30 , citing Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. at 676-678 . {¶51} In support of his third assigned error, Husband argues that “taking away the modification clause in the original agreement, only allowing for a future increase in the spousal support amount, coupled with only one party ordere

2024As set forth in our discussion of Husband’s fourth assigned error, “‘[t]he term “abuse of discretion” is one of art, “connoting judgment exercised by a court, which does not comport with reason or the record.”’” Willoughby at ¶ 24 , quoting In re V.M.B., 2013-Ohio-4298, at ¶ 26 , quoting Underwood, 2009-Ohio-2089, at ¶ 30 , citing Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. at 676-678 . {¶51} In support of his third assigned error, Husband argues that “taking away the modification clause in the original agreement, only allowing for a future increase in the spousal support amount, coupled with only one party ordere

2013In so holding, the court relied upon the language of the covenants that stated the modification clause permitted owners to change “the following covenants.” Id. at 810 .

2013In so holding, the court relied upon the language of the covenants that stated the modification clause permitted owners to change “the following covenants.” Id. at 810 .

2012Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (per curiam).

2012Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (per curiam).

2012No. 03CA13, 2004-Ohio-6132 , this Court cited the following: {¶29} "Our judicial review of the arbitration award is limited: {¶30} "'Arbitration of the modification clause, as of other contract clauses, can be effective only to the extent that the arbitrator's decision is conclusive on the parties, where the arbitration is properly and fairly conducted.

2011See R.C. 1302.12(D); Software Clearing House, Inc. v. Intrak, Inc. (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 163 , 583 N.E.2d 1056 (holding that even a gratuitous oral agreement to modify a prior written agreement is binding if it is acted upon by the parties).

2011See R.C. 1302.12(D); Software Clearing House, Inc. v. Intrak, Inc. (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 163 , 583 N.E.2d 1056 (holding that even a gratuitous oral agreement to modify a prior written agreement is binding if it is acted upon by the parties).

2008Shemo v. Mayfield Hts. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 324 , 750 N.E.2d 167 , I again warn practitioners attempting to institute original actions that until a majority of this court acknowledges the necessity of a modification of this rule, it would be wise to adhere to the letter of S.Ct.Prac.R.

2007In the civil context, the plain error doctrine applies only when an error "seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process." Goldfuss , 79 Ohio St.3d at 122 -123 . *Page 9 {¶ 25} Here, Mr. Jones never objected during the modification hearing to the evidence regarding his relocation and remarriage.

2004Schulke Radio Productions, Ltd. v. Midwestern Broadcasting Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 436 , syllabus; see, also, Jarvis v. Ashland Oil, Inc. (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 189 , syllabus; Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws (1971) 561, Section 187.

2003Risley asked the court to adopt the modification of that standard suggested in Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 578 .

2002This argument is fully set forth in the City's second assignment of error, and we will address it in that context. 2 Although a trial court normally must find that an agency's order is supported by the preponderance of the evidence, we previously noted a slight modification of this requirement when, as in the present case, the appeal to the common pleas court is from an agency order that disaffirms a termination of employment.In City of Dayton v. Whiting (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 115 , 123 , we recognized that because the City bears the burden of proving an administrative charge against an emplo

2002"Rather, the issue for the trial court is whether, on the whole record, the [civil service board] acted unreasonably in determining that the City failed to prove the charges by the preponderance of the evidence." Id.

2001Donna relies on an earlier decision of this court, Smith v. Collins (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 100 , to support her position that the modification was an error.

1999In Proctor v. Proctor (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 56 , 59 , the court observed: "However, it is axiomatic that construction of a contract, in this case the separation agreement, must be accomplished `so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced by the contractual language.' Id. (quoting Skivolocki v. E.

1999In Proctor v. Proctor (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 56 , 59 , the court observed: "However, it is axiomatic that construction of a contract, in this case the separation agreement, must be accomplished `so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced by the contractual language.' Id. (quoting Skivolocki v. E.

1998In In re Whitman (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 239 , the court interpreted a modification clause in a dissolution decree that read: "This Agreement shall not be altered, modified, or amended unless it is done so in writing, signed by both parties, or by Court Order." Id. at 244 .

1998In In re Whitman (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 239 , the court interpreted a modification clause in a dissolution decree that read: "This Agreement shall not be altered, modified, or amended unless it is done so in writing, signed by both parties, or by Court Order." Id. at 244 .

1975Martin v. Jett (1838), 12 La. 501 ; Butler v. Peck (1865), 16 Ohio St. 334 ; 55 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 233, Waters and Watercourses, Section 55.