Oblak v. Bemis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Oblak v. Bemis, 2004-Ohio-269.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO JAMES MICHAEL OBLAK Plaintiff-Appellant : : C.A. CASE NO. 19693 v. : T.C. NO. 02 DV 01050 ELIZABETH ANN BEMIS : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Division of Defendant-Appellee : Domestic Relations) : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 23rd day of January , 2004. .......... JAMES MICHAEL OBLAK, 5271 Belle Isle Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45439 Plaintiff-Appellant ELIZABETH ANN BEMIS, 129 E. Siebenthaler Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45405 Defendant-Appellee .......... PER CURIAM: {¶1} James Oblak filed a petition for domestic violence civil protection order and obtained an ex parte order of protection. The case then came on for an evidentiary hearing wherein Oblak and his former wife, Elizabeth Ann Bemis, testified. At the end 2 of the hearing, the petition for domestic violence civil protection order was dismissed with prejudice for a lack of sufficient credible evidence to support (Oblak s) request. {¶2} Oblak appeals, asserting in effect that the denial of the civil protection order was error. {¶3} Although Oblak s brief, to which Bemis has not responded, contains a lengthy narrative of his grievances against the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, the only thing before this court for our consideration is the record created in connection with Oblak s petition for domestic violence civil protection order. We have reviewed the transcript of the evidentiary hearing and find no basis for disturbing the trial court s determination that the petition was not supported by sufficient credible evidence. {¶4} Accordingly, the order dismissing Oblak s petition and the ex parte preliminary order will be affirmed. .......... FAIN, P.J., WOLFF and YOUNG, J. J., concur. Copies mailed to: James Michael Oblak Elizabeth Ann Bemis Hon. Stephen Alfred Yarbrough (Visiting Judge)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
