DocketNumber: No. 2005CA00221.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 558
Judges: HOFFMAN, J.
Filed Date: 2/6/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 23} I must dissent from the result reached by the majority for two reasons.
{¶ 24} First, the judgment entry latest in time is the one which controls, State ex rel Musselman v. Musselman (December 11, 1998) Montgomery App. No. CA 17160, citing 66 OJur3d (1985) 222; Restatement of the Law 2d, Judgments (1982) 143, and Stateex rel Fraternal Order of Police v. Tegreene (1979),
{¶ 25} Secondly, but just as importantly, I find the result reached by the majority to be grossly unjust. Appellant is now told the support he has paid without challenge for thirteen years is not the correct amount, and he faces a large arrearage.
{¶ 26} I would sustain the assignment of error.