Ganaway v. Ganaway
2017 Ohio 1009
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2001; their joint shared parenting plan (modified by consent in 2003) required them to equally divide college expenses through an undergraduate degree.
- Daughter Meghan enrolled at the University of Alabama for the 2015–2016 academic year; Father did not pay his half of fall (and claimed no spring) semester tuition.
- Father previously filed for bankruptcy in 2011 and argued his discharge eliminated the college-expense obligation; a magistrate rejected that argument before the contempt proceedings.
- Mother moved for contempt; Father largely failed to respond to discovery. The magistrate issued a discovery order barring documents/witnesses not disclosed by a cutoff date and awarded mother attorney fees; Father did not move to set aside that order.
- At the contempt hearing Father was limited by the discovery ruling, was found in civil contempt, sentenced conditionally to ten days jail, and given purge conditions (lump sum payment, attorney fee payment, monthly contributions). Father complied with the purge and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s contempt decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magistrate’s discovery ruling improperly denied Father the right to call witnesses and present evidence | Mother: ruling was an order regulating discovery; sanction was appropriate and Father waived challenge by not moving to set aside | Father: ruling labeled a “decision” and thus subject to objections under Civ.R. 53(D)(3) | Court: it was an order under Civ.R. 53(D)(2); Father forfeited the issue by not moving to set aside the order |
| Whether Father’s due process rights were violated because hearing addressed full freshman year vs. fall semester only | Mother: contempt properly addressed unpaid college support under the 2003 agreement | Father: hearing and decision improperly encompassed entire freshman year and thus violated due process | Court: appeal of contempt is moot because Father purged the contempt by satisfying purge conditions; therefore court need not decide the due-process claim |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in finding Father failed to prove inability to pay | Mother: Father had not shown inability; he made discretionary purchases and failed to economize | Father: he proved financial inability to comply | Court: moot (Father purged contempt); in any event magistrate’s factual findings supported contempt but court declined to address on merits due to mootness |
| Whether Father received ineffective assistance of counsel | Mother: counsel acted within bounds; procedural failures were Father’s responsibility | Father: counsel failed to challenge the discovery ruling, to secure discovery, and to preserve objections/transcript | Court: moot because underlying contempt appeal is moot; declined to address ineffective-assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Docks Venture, L.L.C. v. Dashing Pacific Group, Ltd., 141 Ohio St.3d 107 (2014) (appeal of contempt becomes moot if contemnor purges the contempt)
- In re A.S., 183 Ohio App.3d 697 (2009) (12th Dist.) (party who fails to move to set aside a magistrate’s order waives appellate challenge)