Guy v. Shorey
2019 Ohio 977
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Amy Guy and James Shorey divorced; their separation agreement (incorporated into the divorce decree) required James to refinance the marital home within 120 days to remove Amy from mortgage liability, or immediately list the house for sale with a realtor chosen by Amy and sell at a mutually agreeable price recommended by that realtor.
- The divorce decree was filed May 26, 2016; Amy executed a quitclaim deed as required. James attempted informal refinancing inquiries but did not submit formal refinance applications and admitted he lacked qualifying income at the time.
- James failed to refinance within 120 days and later listed the house for sale with his own realtor, not Amy’s choice; the house remained on the market for many months with James refusing to lower the asking price despite realtor advice.
- Amy moved for specific performance and sought contempt sanctions. A magistrate found James in contempt for breaching the agreement and imposed purge conditions: list with Amy’s chosen realtor at the price recommended by that realtor, allow the realtor to consult with Amy, keep the property saleable, and pay $5,500 toward Amy’s attorney fees.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; James appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting James’s challenges to the contempt finding, the purge conditions, and the award of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guy) | Defendant's Argument (Shorey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether James’ failure to refinance and his listing practices constituted contempt of the divorce decree | James failed to refinance within 120 days and then did not comply with the sale procedures (Amy’s realtor, realtor-recommended price) | He lacked intent to disobey; lenders discouraged formal refinance applications; Amy tacitly accepted his realtor choice by not objecting | Affirmed. Civil contempt proved; intent not required for civil contempt. |
| Whether the court abused discretion in finding contempt based on listing delay and refusal to lower price | Enforcement necessary to effectuate property division; delay and pricing choices thwarted sale | Listing and pricing actions were reasonable; Amy didn’t promptly object to realtor choice | Affirmed. Evidence supported conclusion that James did not act "post-haste" and impeded sale. |
| Whether purge conditions (listing with Amy’s realtor and pricing at realtor’s recommended price) impermissibly modified the divorce decree | Purge conditions are coercive measures to enforce the decree and were reasonable to effectuate sale | Purge conditions changed the decree term requiring a "mutually agreeable price" and were therefore improper | Affirmed. Purge conditions were coercive but lawful; James failed to show them unreasonable or impossible. |
| Whether awarding $5,500 in attorney fees to Amy was improper absent contempt finding | Fees are proper as costs taxed against a contemnor | Fees improper because James was not in contempt | Affirmed. Fees upheld because contempt finding was supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10 (1981) (standard: contempt finding reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- ConTex, Inc. v. Consol. Technologies, Inc., 40 Ohio App.3d 94 (1988) (discusses weight-of-evidence standards when reviewing contempt decrees)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (appellate standard for reviewing manifest miscarriage of justice and presumption in favor of factfinder)
- Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971) (civil contempt: disobedience of court order; innocent violation is not a defense)
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (1984) (proof of intentional violation not required for civil contempt)
- Harris v. Harris, 58 Ohio St.2d 303 (1979) (property settlement in separation agreement incorporated into decree is enforceable by contempt)
- In re Purola, 73 Ohio App.3d 306 (1991) (purge conditions must allow contemnor opportunity to purge; unreasonable or impossible conditions constitute abuse)
- State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (2001) (courts may use civil contempt sanctions to coerce compliance with lawful orders)