Weygandt v. Ward, 2013-Ohio-1937 was a case involving an appeal from a decision of the Wayne County Common Pleas Court. The facts were as follows:
The third assignment of error concerned whether the trial court had failed to ascertain the intent of the testator in interpreting the will. The Court of Appeals held that the law of the case meant that the trial court had to consider Virgil as a quasi-trustee, thus making testator's intent irrelevant.
The fourth assignment of error was that the trial court should have awarded damages instead of invalidating the sale of the Ward farm. The Court of Appeals sustained this assignment of error because under Ohio law while a trial court can void a transfer by a fiduciary acting in violation of his or her fiduciary duties, a purchaser who makes a bona-fide purchase without knowledge of the violation of the fiduciary duties may retain the property. The Court of Appeals remanded for further evidence regarding those issues.
The fifth assignment of error dealt with whether the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence. The Court of Appeals found that it had not.
The sixth assignment of error concerned whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the value of a fee simple interest in the Ward farm. The Court of Appeals held that it did not.
The seventh assignment of error concerned whether the trial court erred in issuing a protective order to bar depositions of out of state witnesses in Ohio. The appellate court held that it did not.
The other decision regarding an appeal from a Wayne County case was Daugherty v. Daugherty, 2013-Ohio-1934. This case also involved an appeal from a domestic relations case. In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
In this case the wife filed an appeal which listed two assignments of error. In discussing the first assignment of error, the appellate court wrote the following: "The crux of Wife’s argument is that the parties had not reached an agreement regarding the allocation of certain real property in which Husband had an interest. She argues that, accordingly, the trial court erred by enforcing the parties’ alleged consent agreement to temporary orders regarding such property while the divorce action was pending."
The Court of Appeals went on to note that at trial the wife stated that the only issue in dispute was the amount of spousal support. The Court found that making this stipulation acted as a waiver of the issue raised in the first assignment of error. Consequently that assignment of error was overruled.
In the second assignment of error the appellate court dealt with the issue of whether the amount of spousal support awarded by the trial court was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found that it was and reversed the spousal support award and remanded the case back to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the opinion.