Carow v. Girton
2014 Ohio 570
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Married in 1994; one child E.G.; divorce finalized October 24, 2008; shared parenting order issued.
- October 4, 2011, appellee sought orders including terms for E.G.’s functions, activities, and summer camps.
- June 11, 2012, the parties filed an agreed entry purportedly addressing those issues, including extracurriculars.
- Paragraph 2 of the agreement allowed both parents to attend all activities and required working toward agreement on activities; if no agreement, each year one parent could select an activity with sole cost.
- Contempt motion filed October 12, 2012 for alleged violation of the extracurricular provision; trial court held appellant in contempt January 24, 2013, later sentenced him but suspended jail with purging conditions.
- Appellant challenged the contempt finding on the theory that the agreement was unambiguous and did not require participation in soccer or Boy Scouts; the court reversed, concluding the agreement was ambiguous and not violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly construed the agreed entry as a matter of law | Girton contends the language is unambiguous and not violated | Carow argues the language required agreement on activities and permitted refusals only if agreed | Abuse of discretion; language ambiguous; reverse contempt finding |
| Whether there was an agreement on extracurricular activities beyond piano | Girton asserts no agreement on soccer or cub scouts | Carow contends inactivity inconsistent with the agreement and necessitating cooperation | No enforceable agreement on soccer/cub scouts; improper contempt finding |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. McDonald, 2013-Ohio-470 (4th Dist. Highland 2013) (civil contempt standard; abuse of discretion standard of review)
- Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (1988) (contempt framework and authority of court orders)
- Cramer v. Petrie, 70 Ohio St.3d 131 (1994) (upholds court authority and contempt principles)
- State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249 (1995) (contempt remedial purpose; civil contempt framework)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (standard for clear and convincing evidence in civil matters)
- Oberst v. Oberst, 2003-Ohio-3042 (5th Dist. Fairfield 2003) (contract-like treatment of agreed entry; interpretation rules)
- Purdy v. Purdy, 2013-Ohio-280 (4th Dist. No. 12CA3490 2013) (appealability of contempt orders; finality after judgment)