(A) Sentence may be suspended if a person, after conviction under section 2919.21 of the Revised Code and before sentence under that section, appears before the court of common pleas in which the conviction took place and enters into bond to the state in a sum fixed by the court at not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, with sureties approved by the court, conditioned that the person will furnish the child or other dependent with necessary or proper home, care, food, and clothing, or will pay promptly each week for such purpose to the office of child support in the department of job and family services, a sum to be fixed by the agency. The child support enforcement agency shall comply with Chapter 3119. of the Revised Code when it fixes the sum to be paid to the division.
(B) If any person required to pay child support under an order made under this section on or after April 15, 1985, or modified on or after December 1, 1986, is found in contempt of court for failure to make support payments under the order, the court that makes the finding, in addition to any other penalty or remedy imposed, shall assess all court costs arising out of the contempt proceeding against the person and require the person to pay any reasonable attorney's fees of any adverse party, as determined by the court, that arose in relation to the act of contempt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1984–2012 · leading case: State v. Flontek, 693 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio 1998).
State v. Flontek, 693 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 8ד21 in pari materia with R.C. 3113.04[A], it is clear that the legislature contemplated more than simply financial nonsupport and intended a broader definition for the term ‘support’ than that contained in the Committee Comment following R.”
State v. Lizanich, 639 N.E.2d 855 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5דR.C. 3113.04 provides, in pertinent part: “(A) Sentence may be suspended if a person, after conviction under section 2919.”
Lewis v. Chapin, 639 N.E.2d 848 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “31; R.C. 3113.04; R.C. 2919.21; R.C. 2919.22; R.”
State v. Schaub, 475 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “21 on the condition that the individual “furnish such child or other dependent with necessary or proper home, care, food, and clothing, or * * * pay promptly each week for such purpose to the bureau of support * * it is clear that appellant’s third assignment of error lacks…”
State v. Henderson, 2012 Ohio 3499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Again, if the State should claim that he has failed this condition, and seek to have his community control sanctions revoked, the trial court would hold a hearing at which Henderson could dispute that claim, and present any defenses available to him. {¶ 22} As the State points…”
State v. Holder, 594 N.E.2d 981 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2ד21 in pari materia with R.C. 3113.04, it is clear that the legislature contemplated more than simply financial nonsupport and intended a broader definition of the term “support” than that contained in the Committee Comment following R.”
State v. Teegarden, 2012 Ohio 3488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “If a dispute arises whether Teegarden has satisfied those conditions, he will have an opportunity to be heard by the trial court, including the opportunity to present any defenses available to him.”
State v. Shufford, 2012 Ohio 3503 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Again, if the State should claim that he has failed this condition, and seek to have his community control sanctions revoked, the trial court would hold a hearing at which Shufford could dispute that claim, and present any defenses available to him. {¶ 23} As the State points…”
State v. Flontek, 1998 Ohio 362 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 8ד21 in pari materia with R.C. 3113.04[A], it is clear that the legislature contemplated more than simply financial nonsupport and intended a broader definition for the term ‘support’ than that contained in the Committee Comment following R.”
Sober v. Montgomery, 2011 Ohio 3218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Using ORC 3113.04, there is no evidence or finding by the hearing officer to prove or justify an amount of support over the income of $150,000.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.04(A): 6 cases
State v. Flontek, 693 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio 1998). “21 in pari materia with R.C. 3113.04[A], it is clear that the legislature contemplated more than simply financial nonsupport and intended a broader definition for the term ‘support’ than that contained in the Committee Comment following R.”
State v. Henderson, 2012 Ohio 3499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Again, if the State should claim that he has failed this condition, and seek to have his community control sanctions revoked, the trial court would hold a hearing at which Henderson could dispute that claim, and present any defenses available to him. {¶ 22} As the State points…”
State v. Teegarden, 2012 Ohio 3488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “If a dispute arises whether Teegarden has satisfied those conditions, he will have an opportunity to be heard by the trial court, including the opportunity to present any defenses available to him.”
State v. Holder, 594 N.E.2d 981 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “21 in pari materia with R.C. 3113.04, it is clear that the legislature contemplated more than simply financial nonsupport and intended a broader definition of the term “support” than that contained in the Committee Comment following R.”
State v. Shufford, 2012 Ohio 3503 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Again, if the State should claim that he has failed this condition, and seek to have his community control sanctions revoked, the trial court would hold a hearing at which Shufford could dispute that claim, and present any defenses available to him. {¶ 23} As the State points…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.