Freeman v. Freeman
2016 Ohio 7565
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Wendell “Kent” Freeman and Teresa Freeman divorced in 2012; the divorce decree awarded Teresa the marital business (Freeman Roofing & Construction, Inc.) and required the company to pay Kent $350/week: initially to satisfy past debt through Dec. 2012, then as salary from Jan. 1, 2013 for seven years for consultation/services he would provide. Payment could be cancelled only by agreement or if the company became insolvent.
- Kent filed a contempt motion in Nov. 2014 alleging the company paid him only 12 of 90 weeks (seeking roughly $31,500). Teresa/the company disputed that characterization, treating many disbursements as loans or reimbursements.
- At the hearing Kent produced a payment summary showing ~$32,062 received from the company during the period but characterized only ~$5,250 as the weekly salary; he also admitted to inaccuracy in company bookkeeping while serving as bookkeeper.
- Kent testified he worked for the company at times from Jan. 2013 until March 2014 but also received unemployment (~$400/week) for about a year during the period; he conceded the company faced insolvency and that he made informal loans and gifts to it.
- The trial court denied contempt relief, finding the weekly $350 was salary contingent on Kent’s provision of services and that Kent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence he was entitled to unpaid salary for the disputed weeks.
- The Fourth District affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the decree and denying the contempt motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kent) | Defendant's Argument (Teresa/company) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying contempt for failure to pay $350/week | Company failed to pay 78 of 90 weeks; contempt warranted | Payments were salary contingent on services and/or were reimbursements/loans; company sometimes insolvent | Affirmed — contempt properly denied because Kent failed to show by clear and convincing evidence he was owed unpaid salary |
| Whether the decree’s $350/week was an unconditional settlement payment or salary conditioned on work | The $350/wk was a settlement due regardless of work | The decree describes the $350/wk as salary for consultation/services, so payment contingent on work | Affirmed — court reasonably interpreted the decree as imposing a salary-for-services condition |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69 (distinguishes civil and criminal contempt and applicable standards)
- Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (clarifies coercive vs punitive nature of contempt)
- Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (discusses aims of contempt remedies)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion)
- In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (appellate review limits when applying abuse-of-discretion standard)