Burke v. Burke, 2014 Ohio 1402

Burke v. Burke involves a Mahoning County domestic relations dispute over spousal-support arrearages and contempt.
Appellant James C. Burke was previously found in contempt for failure to pay spousal support and faced a purge condition that this Court voided in Burke I.
On remand, the trial court imposed a new purge: pay an additional $100 monthly toward a lump-sum arrearage; the lump sum was created by converting arrears to a judgment.
Appellant alleges the new purge condition regulates future conduct and is financially unfeasible given his hardship and medical history.
The appellate court sustains the assignment of error, voids the purge condition again, and remands for a clear, financially feasible purge that does not regulate future conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the purge condition improperly regulates future conduct	Burke argues the purge condition targets future behavior, not past contempt.	Burke contends the condition is a valid purge mechanism.	Purge condition invalid; remanded for a new, non-future-regulating purge.
Whether the purge condition provides a reasonable opportunity to purge given financial hardship	Burke asserts he cannot satisfy the purge due to extensive hardship.	Burke contends the court adequately considered his finances.	Remand for a purge that accounts for Burke's financial hardship.

Brown v. Exec 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980) (civil contempt emphasizes remedial, coercive sanctions)
Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1984) (purge condition scope and validity in civil contempt)
Marden v. Marden, 108 Ohio App.3d 568 (Ohio App. 12th Dist., 1996) (purge conditions must not punish future conduct without notice)
Frey v. Frey, 197 Ohio App.3d 273 (Ohio App. 3d Dist., 2011) (clear opportunity to purge required; not vague)
Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012) (defines purge condition and standards for contempt)