Boyd v. Boyd, 2022 Ohio 4775

Divorce decree (2014) and a November 21, 2016 agreed entry allocated real property and required Michael Boyd to refinance or sell 71 Winner Ave.; the entry also required Boyd to make the HELOC payment on the Lamont Ave. property.
Subsequent events: Boyd attempted to buy Winner Ave.; earlier motions and a prior appeal (Boyd I) resolved related disputes and affirmed the trial court in 2019.
In 2020–2021 Boyd moved to approve his purchase of 71 Winner Ave.; Dillard moved for contempt alleging Boyd failed to pay the Lamont HELOC and had incurred about $15,000 in payments.
Trial court’s July 20, 2021 case-management order required Boyd (through counsel) to provide a balance sheet, appraisal, and proof of funds 14 days before the Sept. 1, 2021 hearing; Boyd failed to comply and Boyd was absent at the hearing (submitted a physician note).
September 13, 2021: trial court denied Boyd’s motion to approve the purchase; November 15, 2021: trial court found Boyd in contempt and awarded Dillard $15,000 plus fees.
On appeal the Tenth District: affirmed denial of the purchase-approval motion; affirmed the contempt finding but vacated the $15,000 compensatory award and remanded for a proper damages hearing or supplemental briefing.

Issue	Dillard's Argument	Boyd's Argument	Held
Whether Boyd was in civil contempt for failing to pay the Lamont HELOC	Boyd failed to pay HELOC as required by the 2016 entry; Dillard incurred payments and is entitled to enforcement/compensation	Contended the HELOC may have been satisfied (impossibility) and prior proceedings precluded this motion (res judicata, waiver, laches)	Court found clear-and-convincing evidence Boyd failed to pay; contempt finding affirmed (Boyd waived some new impossibility argument and res judicata/waiver/laches did not bar the second motion)
Whether the $15,000 award to Dillard for HELOC payments was supported	Sought approx. $15,000 compensation for payments made on HELOC	Argued award was unsupported or improper without evidentiary proof	Court vacated the $15,000 award as there was no testimony/receipts/accounting; remand for full damages hearing or supplemental briefing
Whether denial of Boyd’s motion to approve purchase of Winner Ave. (for failure to appear) was an abuse of discretion	Supported proceeding and denial given Boyd’s noncompliance with the case-management order and repeated absences	Argued denial was improper because Boyd’s absence was for illness (physician note) and he was represented by counsel	Court held trial court did not abuse its discretion: Boyd failed to comply with the July 20 order (documents not produced 14 days in advance), failed to appear or arrange virtual attendance, and had a history of missed appearances; denial affirmed

Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (1984) (standard: civil contempt must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; purpose is to secure compliance, not punishment)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review)
Zakany v. Zakany, 9 Ohio St.3d 192 (1984) (trial court contempt power under R.C. 2705.02 and inherent authority)
Denovchek v. Trumbull County Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (1988) (deference to trial court in contempt and related proceedings)
RLM Indus., Inc. v. Indep. Holding Co., Inc., 83 Ohio App.3d 373 (8th Dist. 1992) (civil contempt sanctions may compensate injured party where damages are direct result of contempt)
First Bank v. Mascrete, 125 Ohio App.3d 257 (4th Dist. 1998) (compensation in contempt proceedings when damages result from contempt)
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488 (2001) (res judicata should not be applied so rigidly as to work injustice)
Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440 (1978) (court of appeals lacks authority to adjudicate trial-judge disqualification matters)