Dibert v. Carpenter
2018 Ohio 1054
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Long-running probate litigation between siblings Gerald Dibert and Cynthia Carpenter over two trusts resulted in final money judgments against Dibert (including appellate affirmance).
- After appellate proceedings, the trial judge (Judge Reisinger) issued a journal entry (Apr. 25, 2017) scheduling a May 9, 2017 "show cause" hearing because Dibert had not paid $411.30 in court costs.
- Dibert filed pro se motions (recusal, correct the record, dismiss show-cause for lack of contempt charge) and appeared at the May 9 hearing; the judge repeatedly characterized the proceeding as collection of costs but the court entry referenced contempt.
- At the hearing the judge accepted an agreement by Dibert to pay $25/month beginning July 15, 2017; the court later entered a journal entry describing the hearing as a show-cause for contempt and overruling Dibert’s motions.
- Dibert appealed, arguing the court erred in using contempt/show-cause to collect civil court costs, failed to issue a written charge of contempt, refused to correct the record, and refused to recuse despite prior recusals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could use a show-cause/contempt proceeding to collect assessed court costs in a civil matter | Dibert: court costs are a civil debt; contempt/show-cause is improper for collection; Galluzzo supports this limitation | Carpenter: Dibert waived challenge by agreeing to payment (oral agreement) | Court: Reversed the show-cause/contempt-based collection. Court costs are a civil obligation and must be collected by civil-judgment remedies, not contempt/show-cause. |
| Whether failure to file a written charge of contempt deprived the court of jurisdiction/due process | Dibert: no written charge, statutory requirements for contempt not met, so hearing invalid | Carpenter: not materially affected; she is not impacted by collection method | Court: Moot—because contempt procedure was improper (court already ruled show-cause method was erroneous), so this assignment overruled as moot. |
| Whether trial court erred in denying motion to correct the record (that proposed amended answer/counterclaim was on file) | Dibert: record should be corrected to show his proposed pleading was filed (affects prior rulings) | Carpenter: not materially affected; appellate rulings already addressed motion to amend | Court: Overruled. Appellate court previously considered the amendment issue; correcting the record would be futile and barred by res judicata. |
| Whether Judge Reisinger should have recused given her prior recusals | Dibert: prior recusals and history required recusal; failure to recuse shows bias | Carpenter: not argued in detail; recusal decision not properly before appellate court | Court: Overruled (waived). No compelling evidence of judicial bias; procedural avenues for disqualification lie with Ohio Supreme Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (court costs are a civil obligation arising from an implied contract; collection methods for civil judgments apply)
- Strattman v. Studt, 20 Ohio St.2d 95 (1969) (court costs constitute a debt within constitutional protections against imprisonment for debt)
- Spercel v. Sterling Indus., Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36 (1972) (oral settlement agreements made in court constitute binding contracts)
- Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (1990) (voluntary satisfaction of judgment generally renders related appeal moot)
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006) (for collection, assessed costs are akin to civil judgments; state may use civil collection methods)
- State v. Lamb, 163 Ohio App.3d 290 (2005) (trial courts cannot jail a defendant for failure to pay a civil debt; contempt coercion for civil costs is inappropriate)