DocketNumber: No. 90991.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 6488
Judges: ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J.:<page_number>Page 3</page_number>
Filed Date: 12/11/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 17} I concur in the judgment and write separately to address a point raised by the dissent. Dillard's requested a nonevidentiary hearing, and Mattox, in her fifteen-page brief opposing Dillard's motion never suggested an oral hearing or further discovery was necessary to develop the record. Rather, she set forth her evidence in an affidavit, and, therefore, I would find that the trial court "heard" the parties, satisfying the statutory requirement. "The parties allowed themselves to be heard *** [T]he nonoral hearing allowed the parties to be heard, as required by R.C.