Barrett v. Barrett
2017 Ohio 7562
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John and Dona Barrett divorced in 2014 after a ~25-year marriage and incorporated an agreed separation agreement into the decree.
- The separation agreement required Husband (John) to forward to Wife (Dona) one-half of the gross proceeds of buyouts of his business interests as those buyouts were distributed.
- John received a first installment of $81,538.91 and paid Dona one-half ($40,769.46).
- A later distribution to John was only $13,223.00 (because of prior partnership draws); John paid Dona nothing on that distribution.
- Dona moved for contempt; the magistrate and trial court found John in contempt for failing to pay Dona her share. John also moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), which the trial court denied.
- John appealed, arguing (1) the decree was ambiguous and he was not in contempt, (2) the trial miscalculated the amount owed, and (3) the Civ.R. 60(B) denial was error. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John was in civil contempt for failing to pay one-half of the gross buyout proceeds | The separation agreement is ambiguous; terms unclear about amounts and timing | Agreement clearly required one-half of each distribution as received; John paid for the first distribution and should have paid the second | Court held the agreement was unambiguous; John was in contempt for not paying his share of the second distribution |
| Whether the trial court erred in determining the amount owed to Dona | Amount owed was miscalculated due to draws and unclear drafting | Parties anticipated varied installment amounts; obligation was one-half of gross proceeds as distributed | Court upheld the calculation and enforcement of one-half of each distribution; no ambiguity found |
| Whether relief under Civ.R. 60(B) was warranted | Sought relief based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, and other equitable grounds; argued decree did not reflect parties’ intent | Agreement was clear; no meritorious defense; no mutual mistake or newly discovered evidence; motion untimely | Court denied 60(B): movant failed GTE factors, raised no meritorious defense, no qualifying mistake/new evidence, and motion filed after one-year limit |
Key Cases Cited
- Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 271 N.E.2d 815 (1971) (defines contempt as disobedience of a lawful court order)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976) (sets three-part test for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Reilley v. Richards, 69 Ohio St.3d 352, 632 N.E.2d 507 (1994) (mutual mistake may justify rescission when material and not discoverable by the complaining party)
- Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency v. Guthrie, 84 Ohio St.3d 437, 705 N.E.2d 318 (1999) (newly discovered evidence under Civ.R. 60(B)(2) must not have been discoverable by due diligence)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64, 448 N.E.2d 1365 (1983) (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is a catch-all but not a substitute for other specific 60(B) grounds)