Tope v. Tope

State: Ohio

Docket No: 2001-Ohio-4014

Case Date: 12/19/2001

Plaintiff: Tope

Defendant: Tope

Preview:[Cite as Tope v. Tope, 2001-Ohio-4014.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

DONNA J. TOPE,    Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.  : : :  APPEAL NO. C-010341 TRIAL NO. DR-9900722 JUDGMENT ENTRY.
HERMAN D. TOPE, JR., :
   Defendant-Appellant.  :

This appeal, considered on the accelerated calendar under App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12, is not controlling authority except as provided in S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 2(G)(1).
Defendant-appellant, Herman D. Tope, appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, dividing the marital property and awarding spousal support in a divorce action.  For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Mr. Tope and plaintiff-appellee, Donna J. Tope, were married in 1969, and they separated in 1996.  They had no children together.  During the marriage, Mr. Tope worked as a firefighter and a truck driver and owned a garage-door business.  Mrs. Tope was a homemaker throughout most of the marriage, but she did work outside the home briefly. Mrs. Tope earned her general equivalency diploma in 1975.  At the time of their separation, both parties were over sixty years of age and experienced some health problems.

OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Following a hearing before a magistrate and the filing of objections by both parties, the trial court issued its decree of divorce on April 27, 2001.  Among other provisions of the decree, the court ordered that a life insurance policy be awarded to Mrs. Tope.  Pursuant to the terms of the decree, Mrs. Tope was to be the beneficiary of the death benefit of the policy, but the policy was ordered to revert to Mr. Tope if Mrs. Tope were to predecease him.  The court further ordered that Mrs. Tope receive $12,466.99, as well as spousal support of $400 per month for the remainder of her life.
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Tope argues that the trial court erred in awarding Mrs. Tope the insurance policy and the $12,466.99.  He argues that the cash payment represented a share of the policy, and that, because the court had already ordered that Mrs. Tope receive the policy, she was in effect awarded the same property twice.  We find no error in the court

Download 2001-ohio-4014.pdf