Andrews v. Andrews, 2023 Ohio 293

Background

Parties divorced in November 2019; extensive post-decree litigation followed, including motions by appellee (Bridge Andrews) alleging appellant (Amanda Andrews) violated the decree.
Appellee filed three contempt motions (June 4, 2021; June 17, 2021; October 6, 2021) asserting failure to refinance/sell a joint vehicle, harassment/direct contact, and failure to pay children’s tuition, respectively; service attempts were spotty or unclaimed in the clerk’s record.
Appellee also filed an August 19, 2021 emergency motion to modify the shared parenting plan; she requested certified-mail service via praecipe but no Civ.R. 75(J) summons was issued or served.
A December 17, 2021 show-cause hearing proceeded while appellant, detained on an unrelated matter, declined transport to court; the trial court received appellee’s testimony (and the guardian ad litem report) and then entered judgment on January 27, 2022 granting the contempt motions and rescinding appellant’s visitation.
The trial court’s judgment also purported to create a judicial lien on any real property owned by appellant in Ottawa County to secure fees; appellant appealed.
The Sixth District reversed, holding appellant was denied due process on the contempt motions, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the custody-modification motion, and the attempted creation of a judicial lien was invalid as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellant received constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before contempt findings	Service (certified mail/email) and hearing attendance sufficed; appellee had the right to proceed	Appellant lacked proper service and ambiguous hearing notices denied reasonable opportunity to prepare/appear	Reversed: due process denied—service/notice and hearing scheduling were deficient; contempt findings vacated
Whether a summons under R.C. 2705.031(C) was required for contempt relating to support	Summons not required for the contempt findings the court ultimately relied on	Where support allegation existed, R.C. 2705.031 summons is mandatory	Court: summons required only for support contempt; that particular allegation was withdrawn, so absence of a summons did not alone sustain reversal on that ground
Whether appellee invoked the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction under Civ.R. 75(J) to modify the shared parenting plan	Praecipe for certified mail and the emergency filing were adequate to notify and invoke jurisdiction	Civ.R. 75(J) requires service as provided in Civ.R. 4–4.6 and a summons; appellee did not obtain or serve a Civ.R. 75(J) summons	Reversed: trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to modify parenting plan because Civ.R. 75(J) service/summons requirements were not met
Whether the trial court validly created a judicial lien on appellant’s real property by its judgment entry	Court’s equitable order could require clerk to hold sale proceeds and secure payment of fees	Judgment liens arise only by filing a certificate of judgment under R.C. 2329.02; the court cannot unilaterally "create" a lien by entry	Reversed: attempted creation of a judicial lien was invalid; court ordered to strike the lien language on remand

Key Cases Cited

Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist. Council 51, Am. Fedn. of State, County & Mun. Employees, 35 Ohio St.2d 197 (1973) (recognizing inherent contempt power of courts)
State v. Hochhausler, 76 Ohio St.3d 455 (1996) (due process protections apply in contempt proceedings)
State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court of Perry County, 25 Ohio St.3d 53 (1986) (notice must be given sufficiently in advance to permit preparation)
In re Yeauger, 83 Ohio App.3d 493 (1992) (statutory summons requirements under R.C. 2705.031 are mandatory when applicable)
Courtney v. Courtney, 16 Ohio App.3d 329 (1984) (statutory due-process requirements for contempt proceedings are mandatory)
Dietl v. Sipka, 185 Ohio App.3d 218 (2009) (judgment liens are creatures of statute and arise only by compliance with R.C. 2329.02)