Craig v. Gilchrist
2021 Ohio 2199
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Terrence Gilchrist had a New Jersey child‑support order (≈ $203–$204/wk plus $50/wk arrearage) registered in Ohio; he filed a contest to the registration on May 3, 2017.
- A magistrate held an evidentiary hearing Oct. 31, 2017, rejected Gilchrist’s insufficiency‑of‑service/due‑process challenge, and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision Nov. 6, 2017; Gilchrist did not object or appeal that ruling.
- The Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency moved for contempt for nonpayment (Sept. 2018). A magistrate found Gilchrist in contempt Dec. 20, 2018, imposed 30 days in jail but suspended the sentence conditioned on a purge plan (monthly payments); the trial court adopted that order.
- Multiple review hearings followed; the trial court executed portions of the suspended sentence incrementally (3 days, then 5 days), and on Oct. 24, 2019 ordered Gilchrist to serve 10 additional days.
- Gilchrist served the 10‑day term, then appealed the Oct. 24, 2019 entry. The Court of Appeals held the appeal moot because the imposed jail days had already been served, and therefore declined to reach the merits of his assignments of error (but addressed the personal‑jurisdiction/service issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FCCSEA) | Defendant's Argument (Gilchrist) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of registration / personal jurisdiction — sufficiency of service of ROFO | Service by certified mail and later personal service was effective; ROFO properly registered and notice provided | Service was deficient (no signed certified‑mail receipt; process server did not personally serve); thus Ohio court lacked personal jurisdiction | Magistrate and trial court properly found due process satisfied; registration confirmed; Gilchrist is precluded from further contest of that registration |
| Nature of contempt and right to purge | Contempt was civil/coercive; sentence conditional and subject to purge; enforcement proper | Challenged imposition as unconstitutional deprivation of liberty / taking | Court treated contempt as civil; purge mechanism required; because Gilchrist served the executed jail days his appeal is moot |
| Mootness of appeal after service of sentence | Appeal is moot because defendant already served the jail term he challenges | Claimed constitutional issues are capable of repetition and evade review; appeal remains live | Appeal is moot; exceptions (capable of repetition yet evading review / matters of great public interest) do not apply here |
| Constitutional and procedural claims (taking, burden of proof, ADA, full faith and credit, cumulative error) | FCCSEA relied on procedural posture and waiver; urged dismissal as moot and default of issues not timely raised | Raised multiple constitutional and legal errors on appeal (including lack of personal jurisdiction, wrong burden, ADA discrimination) | Court declined to reach merits due to mootness; also noted many defenses were not raised below and were waived or were foreclosed by confirmation of the registered order |
Key Cases Cited
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1984) (civil‑contempt sanctions aim to coerce compliance rather than punish)
- Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (Ohio 1980) (civil contempt sentences are conditional where purge is possible)
- Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio 1988) (deference to trial court discretion in contempt matters)
- Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 1990) (appellate courts may not substitute their judgment for trial court’s discretionary rulings)
- State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229 (Ohio 2000) (standards for the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ mootness exception)
- State ex rel. Ames v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 159 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2020) (reiterating two‑part test for the repetition‑yet‑evading‑review exception)