Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

Jan. 27, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Wills-Trusts; civil miscellaneous
- Contracts
- Financial Custody Agreement
- Collective Bargaining

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.

 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Great American Insurance Company v. Thompson Trust (January 27, 2006)
(2006-Ohio-304)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-304.pdf
- The trial court properly granted a creditor's-bill in favor of a
judgment creditor on the debtor's interest in nondiscretionary
distributions from a trust set up to benefit the debtor:  The
spendthrift provision in the trust was invalid as to the debtor's
unconditional right to withdraw $5,000, plus 5% of the trust corpus at
the end of each year the debtor was still alive. The trial court did not
err in granting the judgment creditor a priority lien in the debtor's
interest in nondiscretionary distributions when the judgment creditor
had filed a creditor's-bill-complaint and served it upon the trustees of
the trust:  Upon the filing and service of a creditor's bill, an
equitable lien arose by operation of law. A probate court order
directing the trustees of the trust to apply nondiscretionary
distributions to the debtor's debt to the trust did not create a lien on
the debtor's interest in his right to withdraw money at the end of each
year.  Accordingly, the defendant-trust occupied the same position as an
unsecured creditor. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Hall v. U.S. Bank (January 27, 2006) (2006-Ohio-303)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-303.pdf
-  Where a contract for the sale of real property did not expressly
make time of the essence, the buyer had a reasonable time following the
closing date within which to tender payment:  The buyer's tender of the
full purchase price two days after the closing date set forth in the
contract was within a reasonable time.  [See SEPARATE CONCURRENCE:  The
trial court erred by dismissing the buyer's contract claim under Civ.R.
12(B)(6) because the issue whether the parties made time of the essence
by their actions could have only been resolved after a full factual
hearing, not on the face of the pleadings.] Judgment REVERSED AND CAUSE
REMANDED.

 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

Pavlovich v. National City Bank (January 27, 2006) (Appeal from N.D.
Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0040p-06.pdf
-  Pavlovich lost a million-and-a-half dollars in investments to a
privately-held health care company, Rx Remedy.  Pavlovich now is trying
to blame National City Bank for following her investment instructions
and those of her unscrupulous investment advisor, Cashel Management
Company. She signed a Custody Agreement with the Bank that generally
required the Bank to follow her written instructions regarding
investment of the funds entrusted to the Bank. To conceal the true state
of Ms. Pavlovich's investment funds, Cashel devised a scheme of
"rollover transactions" that eventually depleted her account. Pavlovich
argues that the Bank breached the Custody Agreement by following
Cashel's purportedly unauthorized instructions to direct money to Rx
Remedy. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

MI Family Resources v. Local 517M SEIU  (January 27, 2006) (Appeal from
W.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0041p-06.pdf
-  Local 517M of the Service Employees International Union challenges
the decision of the district court to vacate an arbitration award in its
favor. Because the award does not draw its essence from the collective
bargaining agreement, we affirm.

Daily Case Updates