Barton v. Barton
2017 Ohio 980
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Douglas and Keesha Barton divorced after a short, volatile marriage; the divorce decree (Sept. 12, 2014) awarded Keesha 12 months of $500 spousal support and $4,500 in attorney fees to be paid by Douglas.
- Both parties had mutual domestic-violence CPOs issued April 30, 2014; Douglas’s CPO was reversed on appeal in Barton I; Keesha’s CPO (against Douglas) was later moved to dismiss and ultimately terminated by the trial court on March 24, 2016 (Douglas did not appeal that final order).
- Keesha moved for contempt (Aug. 11, 2015) based on Douglas’s failure to pay the spousal support and the $4,500 attorney-fee award; she also sought a withholding order and fees for prosecution of those motions.
- Judge Stucki (sitting by assignment) held an evidentiary hearing on March 7, 2016, found Douglas in contempt for failing to pay ordered fees/support, sentenced him (30 days, fine, costs) with an opportunity to purge, awarded additional attorney fees, and directed a withholding order; a nunc pro tunc corrected a caption error.
- Douglas appealed pro se raising multiple assignments of error challenging jurisdiction, fraud, due process, right to counsel, the contempt finding, and dismissal of the CPO. The appellate court affirmed in all respects that were properly before it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barton) | Defendant's Argument (Evans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court had jurisdiction despite pending appeals | Trial court lacked jurisdiction because a Civ.R. 60(B) motion was on appeal and prior orders were fraudulent | Trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce its decree; no stay was obtained | Court: trial court had jurisdiction to hear contempt, withholding, discovery and fee motions; appeal did not divest jurisdiction absent a stay |
| Contempt for nonpayment of attorney fees/support | Contempt was improper, based on earlier fraudulent/divorce orders; imprisonment was false imprisonment (debt) | Contempt enforces divorce decree; incarceration for contempt coercive/remedial, not imprisonment for debt | Court: contempt finding and sentence were not an abuse of discretion; incarceration for contempt enforcing court order is permissible |
| Withholding order for spousal support issued while Civ.R. 60(B) appeal pending | Withholding was improper because trial court lacked authority while appeal pending | Withholding enforces a decree that did not reserve modification jurisdiction; Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to alter spousal-support reservations | Court: withholding order validly issued; Morris limits Civ.R. 60(B) relief where decree did not reserve jurisdiction to modify support |
| Dismissal of Keesha’s CPO and related procedural defects | Dismissal was preordained, violated due process, and the trial court acted with bias/fraud | Court held a hearing, made required R.C. 3113.31(E)(8)(c) findings in the final March 24 entry; Douglas failed to appeal that final order | Court: will not consider CPO dismissal claims because Douglas did not timely appeal the March 24, 2016 final order |
| Right to counsel / motion for continuance | Douglas alleges denial of counsel and an improper denial of continuance | Trial court warned Douglas of his rights, he did not request appointed counsel or show indigence, and sought continuance late for appellate oral argument | Court: no denial of due process; no abuse of discretion in denying continuance; failure to follow procedures to obtain court- appointed counsel fatal |
| Clerical caption error (Montgomery vs. Greene County) | Caption error rendered judgments void or deprived court of jurisdiction | Trial court corrected the clerical mistake by nunc pro tunc entry before appeal was docketed | Court: nunc pro tunc correction under Civ.R. 60(A) valid; caption error did not void judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Morris, 148 Ohio St.3d 138 (Ohio 2016) (trial courts lack jurisdiction under Civ.R. 60(B) to modify periodic spousal support absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the decree)
- Docks Venture, L.L.C. v. Dashing Pacific Group, Ltd., 141 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 2014) (contempt order imposing a sentence conditioned on failure to purge is final and appealable)
- St. Vincent Charity Hosp. v. Mintz, 33 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 1987) (entries that direct preparation of a final judgment are interlocutory until the final journal entry is filed)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2011) (Due Process does not automatically require appointment of counsel in civil contempt proceedings enforcing child support where alternative procedural safeguards are provided)
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1984) (imprisonment for violation of divorce-decree provisions does not violate the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt)