!

!
!
!
!
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
!
______________________________________________________________________________
!
JULIE B. GOFFSTEIN )
) Appeal No. C 1400418
Plaintiff - Appellant, )
) Trial No. DR 1001501
vs. )
)
PETER M. GOFFSTEIN )
)
Defendant - Appellee. )
______________________________________________________________________________
!
BRIEF OF APPELLANT

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF - ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

APPELLANT
Timothy J. Bicknell (#0084571)
Attorney for Julie Goffstein
3268 Jefferson Ave., 1st Floor
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
(513) 919-9203
(513) 541-5754 fax
Joel Moskowitz
Attorney for Peter M. Goffstein
Moskowitz & Moskowitz, LLC
441 Vine St., Ste. 2900
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 721-3111

!
!
!
!
1
 !
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS & ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORS
!
!
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR….………………..……2-4
!
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
!
A. PROCEDURAL POSTURE…………..………………………………………..4-7
!
B. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………………………………..……7-9
!
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR AND ARGUMENT
!
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR………………………………………………………9
!
The trial court abused its discretion to the prejudice of Ms. Goffstein by allocating
custody and parental rights in the decree of divorce based on the improper reallocation
and modification of parental rights in the trial court’s May and July, 2013 orders.

LAW AND ARGUMENT………………………………………..………………….…9-11

!
TABLE OF CASES
!
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983)……………..…….9
!
Brammer v. Brammer, 194 Ohio App.3d 240, 955 N.E.2d 453
(Ohio App. 3 Dist. 2011)………………………………………..10
!
!
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997)………………….……10
!
Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53, 876 N.E.2d 546 (2007)………………..……..10
!
Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988)…………………..……..……9
!
STATUTES & RULES
!
R.C. 3109.04(E)…………..………………………………………………………………9
!
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR………………………………………………….10
!
2
 The trial court abused its discretion and violated Ms. Goffstein’s right to due process and
a fair trial by modifying its May, 2013 judgment, both nunc pro tunc, and after the filing
of a notice of appeal, and then dismissing Ms. Goffstein’s Motion to Vacate & Set Aside
Judge’s Decision because the judge’s decision at issue was being appealed. Further, the
trial court abused its discretion by holding the disputed hearing on July 29, 2013 only six
days after the filing of Mr. Goffstein’s motion and without a showing that service had
been perfected.
!
LAW & ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………..……10-11
!
TABLE OF CASES
!
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009)………………12
!
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623 (1955)…………………………………….12
!
State v. ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 922 N.E.2d 214 (2010)………..12
!
STATUTES & RULES
!
Ohio R. Civ. P. 6………………………………………………………………………….12
!
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR……………………………………………………13
!
The trial court abused its discretion by incorporating an inequitable division of property
in the decree of divorce, by not awarding wife spousal support, and by overruling Ms.
Goffstein’s objections to the Magistrate’s December 4, 2013 decision, which formed the
basis of the decree’s property division.
!
LAW & ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………..……12-13
!
TABLE OF CASES
!
Zerbe v. Zerbe, 1st Dist. Nos. C 040035, C 040036, 2005-Ohio-1180………………….14
!
STATUTES & RULES
!
RC 3105.171…………………………………………………………………………….14
!
RC 3105.18………………………………………………………………………………14
!
IV. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………..………15
!
3
V. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………………………………….…..16
!
VI. APPENDIX…………………………..………………………………………………..…17
!
Decree of Divorce, June 24, 2014.
!
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
!
A. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
!
On July 2, 2010, Appellant, Julie Goffstein (“Ms. Goffstein”), filed a complaint for

divorce from her husband, Peter Goffstein (“Mr. Goffstein”) in the Hamilton County Court of

Domestic Relations (T.d. 3). The Magistrate’s Amended 75N Order was issued on July 29, 2010,

wherein Ms. Goffstein was designated the residential and custodial parent for all six of the minor

children (Jeremy, Jacob, Aaron, Elijah, Levi, and Aryeh), and Mr. Goffstein was ordered to pay

$5000.00 per month in spousal support, and $1139.34 in child support (T.d. 31).

A custody trial was held during 11 separate hearings from August, 2011 to March, 2012,

and in the subsequent entry, the trial judge designated Ms. Goffstein the sole residential and

custodial parent of the six minor children, and gave Mr. Goffstein parenting time only with the

four youngest children (T.d 198). On July 17, 2012, Ms. Goffstein’s trial counsel, Ms. Howard,

was granted leave to withdraw (T.d. 211). On March 11, 2013, Mr. Goffstein filed a motion to

reallocate custody of the minor children (T.d 271). On April 10, 2013, Ms. Goffstein’s counsel,

Mr. Somers, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel (T.d. 274), which the trial court granted in

part; allowing counsel to withdraw from representing Ms. Goffstein in subsequent proceedings

related to custody and parenting, but requiring counsel to remain for property issues pending in

front of the magistrate (T.d. 278). On April 30, 2013, Mr. Kenneth Flacks entered a notice of

4
appearance on Ms. Goffstein’s behalf (T.d. 282), and filed a motion to continue the reallocation

of custody hearing scheduled for May 2 and 3, 2013 (T.d. 283). The trial court denied the

motion to continue (T.d. 284).

After a two-day hearing on Mr. Goffstein’s motion to reallocate, the trial court granted

Mr. Goffstein’s motion as to the four youngest children and denied the motion as to the two

oldest children, splitting the children between the two parents (T.d. 293). On June 14, 2013, the

trial court entered an amended entry nunc pro tunc giving Mr. Goffstein control over the oldest

child’s education (T.d. 298).

On June 20, 2013, Ms. Goffstein filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s May 22, 2013

entry (T.d. 306). Also on June 20, 2013, the trial court again amended its May 22nd entry nunc

pro tunc (T.d. 309). On July 23, 2013, Mr. Goffstein filed a motion to modify the previous

parenting orders (T.d. 340), which was heard by the trial court on July 29, 2013.

On July 30, 2013, the trial court entered the Judge’s Decision, wherein it held Ms.

Goffstein in contempt, sentenced her to four separate terms of incarceration in the Hamilton

County Justice Center, and gave her purge conditions of paying Mr. Goffstein’s attorney’s fees

by October 1, 2013, and of granting Mr. Goffstein additional parenting time by December 1,

2013 (T.d. 349, ¶¶ 5-9).

On August 5, 2013, Ms. Goffstein filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s July 30th

entry. On August 26, 2013, a magistrate’s entry suspended Ms. Goffstein’s spousal support in

light of the trial court’s entry of June 20, 2013 (T.d. 365). Ms. Goffstein filed written objections

to the Magistrate’s decision (T.d. 370), which were overruled by the trial court (T.d. 388). On

October 7, 2013, the magistrate entered a decision denying Ms. Goffstein’s request to reopen her

5
case (T.d. 375). Ms. Goffstein filed objections to that decision on October 15, 2013 (T.d. 382),

and the trial court overruled those objections on November 8, 2013 (T.d. 393). On December 4,

2013, the magistrate entered his decision on property (T.d. 402). Ms. Goffstein’s objected on

December 19th (T.d. 424).

A contempt imposition hearing was held on December 9, 2013, where the trial court

imposed at total of 18 days imprisonment, with 9 days to begin on January 6, 2014, and 9 days to

begin on January 15, 2014. (T.d. 415). The trial court included as purge conditions that Ms.

Goffstein comply with the conditions previously set out in paragraphs 5 and 7 of its Decision

dated July 30, 2013 (T.d. 415). On December 17, 2013, the trial court amended its December

10th Entry nunc pro tunc, and added additional purge conditions for Ms. Goffstein not included

in the December 10th entry (T.d. 420). On December 19, 2013, Ms. Goffstein filed objections to

the Magistrate’s decision on property (T.d. 424)

On January 2, 2014, Ms. Goffstein filed her Motion to Stay Execution of Contempt

Sentence in the trial court, wherein she informed the trial court of her intention to appeal the

contempt imposition (T.d. 434). On January 6, 2014, Ms. Goffstein filed a notice of appeal with

this Court (T.d. 435). On January 15, 2014, a purge entry was filed by the trial court (T.d. 441a).

The trial court overruled Ms. Goffstein’s objections to the magistrate’s property decision

on February 7, 2014 (T.d. 453). On February 18, 2014, Ms. Goffstein filed a motion to modify

parenting time (T.d. 461). On March 18, 2014, Ms. Goffstein filed a motion to vacate and set

aside the Judge’s decision entered July 30, 2013 (T.d. 473). After a two day hearing, the trial

court entered a decision granting in-part Mr. Goffstein’s motion to modify parenting time, and

denied Ms. Goffstein’s motion to modify parenting time (T.d. 481).

6
 On April 9, 2014, the trial court imposed a contempt sentence on Ms. Goffstein (T.d. 490)

and dismissed Ms. Goffstein’s motion to vacate the July 30th decision (T.d. 493). On April 25,

2014, the trial court entered a decision denying Mr. Goffstein’s motion to reallocate parenting

rights for the two oldest children (T.d. 502). On June 4, 2014, Mr. Goffstein filed a motion to

adopt the attached divorce decree (T.d. 508). On June 6, 2014, the First District Court of

Appeals filed judgment entries dismissing Ms. Goffstein’s appeals in case numbers C 1300377

and C 1300480) (T.d. 509-510). On June 24, 2014, the trial court entered a decree of divorce

(T.d. 512). The notice of appeal in this case was filed July 21, 2014 (T.d. 515).

B. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

This case stretches from July 2010 to June 2014. Halfway through the case, at the end of

June, 2012, Ms. Goffstein was the custodial and residential parent for all six of her minor

children (T.d. 198), and was receiving $5000 per month in spousal support and over $1100 per

month in child support (T.d. 31). By June, 2014, Ms. Goffstein had lost custody of her four

youngest children - with limited parenting time - (T.d. 293), had her spousal support suspended

(T.d. 365), had her child support reduced, and received no payments or property from the marital

assets (T.d. 512).

The seminal event which changed the course of Ms. Goffstein’s divorce was a May, 2013

hearing and order in the trial court based on Mr. Goffstein’s Motion to Reallocate Parental Rights

and Responsibilities. While Mr. Goffstein presented no evidence to show a change in

circumstances of the four youngest children, and based his motion almost exclusively on what he

perceived to be Ms. Goffstein’s failures (T.d. 271), the trial court granted his pre-decree motion

to reallocate custody and parenting rights as to the four youngest children, and denied his motion

7
as to the two oldest children, splitting the six Goffstein children into two separate custody

arrangements (T.d. 293).

During the course of the motion hearing, on May 2, 2013, Ms. Goffstein’s counsel, who

had filed his notice of appearance the day before, renewed his request for a short continuance so

as to be properly prepared for the hearing, but the trial court denied his request and proceeded

with evidence and testimony (T.p. 10:13, Motion Hr’g 5/2/13 T.d. 373). Ms. Goffstein appealed

the trial court’s May 22, 2013 order (T.d. 306).

Following the trial court’s granting of Mr. Goffstein’s request to reallocate parental rights,

the trial court amended its May 22, 2013 entry nunc pro tunc on both June 14, 2013 (T.d. 298),

and again on June 20, 2013 (T.d. 309). Each entry included additional parental rights granted to

Mr. Goffstein. Mr. Goffstein again moved to modify the previous parenting orders on July 23,

2013, and the trial court held a hearing just 6 days later on July 29, 2013 (T.d. 349). Ms.

Goffstein again appealed the trial court’s entry, and later moved the trial court to vacate the entry

based on a lack of proper service, and having the hearing only 6 days after filing (T.d. 473). The

trial court dismissed Ms. Goffstein’s motion based on the fact that the July 30th entry had been

appealed (T.d. 493). The trial court incorporated the reallocated parental rights into its final

decree.

Based on the trial court’s June 20, 2013 nunc pro tunc entry, the magistrate suspended

Ms. Goffstein’s spousal support on August 26, 2013 (T.d. 365). In the subsequent property

decision entered December 4, 2013, the magistrate allowed Mr. Goffstein to retain his interest in

all his retirement accounts, and his real property in Wyoming (T.d. 402). Despite the Goffstein’s

15 year marriage, and the fact that Ms. Goffstein’s earning potential was approximately 1/6 that

8
of Mr. Goffstein’s, the magistrate granted Ms. Goffstein no spousal support (T.d. 424, p.6). The

trial court overruled all of Ms. Goffstein’s objections (T.d. 453), and incorporated the

magistrate’s decision into its final divorce decree (T.d. 512).

III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR AND ARGUMENT

A. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

!
The trial court abused its discretion to the prejudice of Ms. Goffstein by allocating

custody and parental rights in the decree of divorce based on the improper reallocation and

modification of parental rights in the trial court’s May and July 2013 orders.

1. LAW & ARGUMENT

The issue before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it

reallocated custody and parental rights in its May 2013 order, and incorporated that May 2013

decision into the decree of divorce. For the reasons that follow, Ms. Goffstein submits to this

Court that the trial court abused its discretion in allocating custody and parental rights in this

case.

The standard of review to be applied in questions of custody proceedings is whether the

trial court abused its discretion. Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988).

The term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that

the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5

Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

While a trial court’s discretion in a custody modification proceeding is broad, it is not

absolute, and must be guided by the language set forth in R.C. 3109.04. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d at

74. Under 3109.04(E), a court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and

9
responsibilities for the care of the children unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since

the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change

has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child’s residential parent, or either of the

parents subject to a shared parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the

best interest of the child. Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53, 56, 876 N.E. 2d 546 (2007).

A change in circumstance must be a change of substance, not a slight or inconsequential

change. Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). The change in

circumstances must have a material effect on the child, and the first determination to be made is

whether a change in circumstances has occurred since the court’s last decree. Brammer v.

Brammer, 194 Ohio App.3d 240, 245, 955 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. 2011).

In this case, the trial court reallocated the custody and parental rights related to the four

youngest Goffstein children without evidence showing a change in circumstances, and in

opposition to what was clearly the best interests of the children. That reallocation was then

incorporated into the final decree of divorce.

On June 21, 2012, after 11 days of testimony and evidence presented during a custody

trial, the trial court designated Ms. Goffstein the sole residential and custodial parent of all six of

the minor children (T.d. 198). The custody trial included evidence that Mr. Goffstein had acted

inappropriately toward the children with regard to their religious practices (T.d. 192, p.2), and

that he had conceded custody of the two oldest boys (Id. at 1). Further, a court-appointed social

worker, Ms. Duncan, concluded that in the best interests of the children, the trial court should

deny Mr. Goffstein’s request for shared parenting, and not impose different custody

arrangements between the 2 older and four youngest children (Id. at 5).

10
 After all the evidence, testimony, and expert opinion which made up the trial court’s

June, 2012 decision of what constituted a custody arrangement that met the best interests of all

six of the Goffstein children, the trial court completely reversed itself when in May, 2013 it

granted Mr. Goffstein’s motion to reallocate parental rights (T.d. 293).

The trial court abused its discretion in granting Mr. Goffstein’s motion to reallocate for

three reasons. First, Mr. Goffstein failed to show that there was a change in circumstances

affecting the four youngest children. Mr. Goffstein’s motion alleged almost exclusively issues

related to Ms. Goffstein’s failure to follow what Mr. Goffstein considered to be the guidelines set

out by the court, and allegations that their oldest child was not doing well in school (T.d. 271).

Mr. Goffstein’s motion included no information about the five other children, and does not allege

any substantial change in circumstances requiring a reallocation of custody.

Second, even Mr. Goffstein’s allegations were refuted by Gary Crouch, the court’s

parenting supervisor. During his May 2, 2013 testimony, Mr. Crouch answered “no” when asked

whether Ms. Goffstein’s actions equaled non-participation in court-ordered therapy (T.p. 18:1,

5/2/13 Hearing), and stated that there were things that concerned him about Mr. Goffstein being a

custodial parent (Id. at 47:2). Further, Mr. Crouch testified that there was “nothing detrimental”

about what Jeremy - the oldest child - was learning at Yeshiva (Id. at 90:16).

Finally, the trial court abused its discretion by clearly not considering the best interests of

the children, both in designating Mr. Goffstein as sole residential and custodial parent, and by

splitting the children between two parents - even in light of expert guidance against granting

even shared parenting at the custody trial, and specifically warning against having different

custody arrangements for the older and younger children (T.d. 192, p.5).

11
 B. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The trial court abused its discretion and violated Ms. Goffstein’s right to due process by

modifying its May, 2013 judgment, both nunc pro tunc, and after the filing of a notice of appeal,

and then dismissing Ms. Goffstein’s Motion to Vacate & Set Aside Judge’s Decision because the

judge’s decision at issue was being appealed. Further, the trial court abused it discretion by

holding the disputed hearing July 29, 2013 only 6 days after the filing of Mr. Goffstein’s motion

(T.d. 340) and without a showing that service had been perfected.

1. LAW & ARGUMENT

The issue before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion by modifying a

judgment that was being appealed, but then using pending appellate review as a basis to dismiss

Ms. Goffstein’s motion to vacate (T.d. 493). Further, did the trial court abuse its discretion and

violate Ms. Goffstein’s right to due process by holding a hearing on Mr. Goffstein’s Motion to

Modify Previous Parenting Orders less than 7 days after it was filed, in violation of Civil Rule

6(C), and without proper service on Ms. Goffstein?

A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Caperton v. A.T.

Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876, 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009), quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S.

133, 75 S.Ct. 623 (1955). When an appeal is filed, a trial court loses jurisdiction over that action,

other than collateral issues or to aid the appeal. State ex del. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d

355, 2010-Ohio-252, 922 N.E.2d 214, ¶ 21 (2010). Under Ohio R. Civ. P. 6(C), notice of a

hearing must be served not later than 7 days before the date of hearing.

Ms. Goffstein appealed the trial court’s May, 2013 reallocation of custody and parental

rights (T.d. 306). The trial court modified its May 22, 2013 entry on several occasions. First, it

12
improperly amended its entry nunc pro tunc on June 14, 2013, giving Mr. Goffstein additional

rights over the oldest boys’ education which were not included in the May 22, 2013 entry (T.d.

298), and again on June 20, 2013, again adding conditions not included in either hearing

testimony or in the May 22nd entry (T.d. 309). And, while the appeal was pending, the trial

court modified its May entry by granting Mr. Goffstein’s Motion to Modify Previous Parenting

Orders in the court’s July 30, 2013 decision (T.d. 349). Further, the trial court dismissed Ms.

Goffstein’s Motion to Vacate its July, 2013 decision, stating that it lacked jurisdiction because the

July, 2013 decision was under appellate review (T.d. 493).

Ms. Goffstein’s Motion to Vacate the July 30, 2013 decision was predicated partially on

the fact that the trial court proceeded on Mr. Goffstein’s motion to modify previous parenting

orders, even in the absence of service, and only 6 days after Mr. Goffstein’s motion had been

filed (T.d. 473). Ms. Goffstein was not present at the July 29, 2013 hearing, and the trial court

granted Mr. Goffstein’s motion in-part (T.d. 481). The trial court abused its discretion by both

proceeding on its July 29, 2013 hearing, and by then dismissing Ms. Goffstein’s motion to vacate

the related decision because the case was currently under appeal (T.d. 493). Clearly, the trial

court had not been dissuaded by Ms. Goffstein’s appeal when it modified its May 22, 2013 entry

while the case was pending in the Court of Appeals. The trial court subsequently modified

additional entries and proceeded on Mr. Goffstein’s motion to modify parenting time while Ms.

Goffstein’s appeals have been pending.

C. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The trial court abused its discretion by incorporating an inequitable division of property

in the decree of divorce, by not awarding wife spousal support, and by overruling Ms.

13
Goffstein’s objections to the Magistrate’s December, 2013 decision which formed the basis of the

decree’s property division.

1. LAW & ARGUMENT

The division of marital property is controlled by ORC § 3105.171. Pursuant to ORC §

3105.171(C)(1), a court should divide marital property equally unless an equal division would be

inequitable, and must consider the factors set forth in ORC § 3105.171(F) in making its decision.

Zerbe v. Zerbe, 1st Dist. Nos. C 040035, C 040036, 2005-Ohio-1180, ¶ 30.

A court’s award of spousal support is governed by ORC § 3105.18, which provides that

spousal support should be awarded as is appropriate and reasonable. Zerbe, 2005-Ohio-1180, ¶

26. In making its determination, the court must consider the factors set forth in ORC §

3105.18(C)(1), including the income of the parties, the earning capacity, duration of the

marriage, and the standard of living. Id.

In this case, the trial court erred by inequitably dividing the marital estate, and by not

awarding any spousal support to Ms. Goffstein. In overruling Ms. Goffstein’s objections to the

magistrate’s property decision, the trial court found that because Mr. Goffstein had a $233,336.00

negative distribution, and Ms. Goffstein had sought bankruptcy protection, that Ms. Goffstein

should receive no property or payments from either Mr. Goffstein’s retirement accounts, or from

Mr. Goffstein’s property in Wyoming (T.d. 453). Additionally, the trial court found that an award

of spousal support was not just or appropriate under the ORC 3105.18 factors (Id.)

The trial court erred by finding that Ms. Goffstein should be effectively punished for

filing for bankruptcy protection, when clearly Mr. Goffstein’s salary of $120,000 per year (T.d.

402) allowed him greater flexibility in paying down debt than Ms. Goffstein’s income of

14
approximately $20,000 per year (T.d. 424, p.6). Further, the trial court did not consider that the

Goffstein’s had been married for almost 15 years, and the standard of living the parties had been

accustomed to. Further, the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate’s finding that Ms.

Goffstein had been “primarily” responsible for the duration of the divorce and its related

attorneys’ fees, and the erroneous finding that Ms. Goffstein had been found in contempt no less

than nine times (T.d. 402, p.5). Both the magistrate and the trial court apparently mistook the

filing of Mr. Goffstein’s motion for contempt and modification, with the merits of said motions.

In light of the facts and law, the trial court’s property and spousal support decision is an

abuse of discretion, and a violation of Ms. Goffstein’s right to due process.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Appellant, Julie Goffstein, respectfully submits that the trial

court abused its discretion by entering the divorce decree in this case, and violated Ms,

Goffstein’s right to due process, and requests that this Honorable Court sustain the assignments

of error presented, and remand the matter back to a new trial judge for further proceedings

consistent with this Court's findings.

Respectfully submitted,

Timothy J. Bicknell (#0084571)

Attorney for Julie Goffstein
3268 Jefferson Ave., 1st Floor
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
(513) 919-9203
(513) 541-5754 fax
tjbicknell@gmail.com
!
!
!
15
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
!
I, Timothy J. Bicknell, hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was
served this 9th day of March, 2014, to the office of Joel Moskowitz, Attorney for Peter M.
Goffstein, 441 Vine Street, Suite 2900, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.

Timothy J. Bicknell (#0084571)

Attorney for Appellant
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
16
APPENDIX I

17