In re Contempt of Anderson, 2017 Ohio 86

Anderson was declared a vexatious litigator by Cuyahoga C.P. on March 6, 2015 and ordered not to file further proceedings in specified courts without leave. The order was certified for publication under R.C. 2323.52(H).
While the vexatious designation and an appeal were pending, Mitchell moved to show cause alleging Anderson filed five papers in violation of the order. Those filings occurred in April 2015, before the March order became a final appealable judgment.
The trial court awarded Mitchell $1,137.50 in attorney fees on June 8, 2015 and later conducted an indirect criminal contempt hearing (October 29, 2015) after appointing counsel for Anderson.
The trial court convicted Anderson of five counts of indirect criminal contempt based on the five filings, imposed consecutive jail terms totaling 50 days and fines totaling $2,600.
On appeal, the Eighth District reversed and remanded, holding the contempt convictions and criminal penalties were an abuse of discretion because statutory civil remedies under the vexatious-litigant statute, including dismissal and civil monetary sanctions, made criminal punishment unreasonable as a first resort.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 6, 2015 vexatious-litigant order was a lawful basis for criminal contempt	Anderson: order unlawful / cannot support contempt	Mitchell: order valid; Anderson violated it by filing pleadings	Court: order was lawful and not subject to collateral attack, but using criminal contempt to punish these violations was an abuse of discretion given available civil remedies
Whether the contempt charging document alleged one offense in multiple ways vs. five distinct offenses	Anderson: single offense alleged in multiple ways; multiplicity problem	Mitchell: each filing constituted a separate violation	Court: decision on this issue rendered moot after finding criminal punishment inappropriate
Whether evidence identifying Anderson as the filer was sufficient	Anderson: identity evidence insufficient	Mitchell: certified copies of the five filings bearing Anderson’s signature and address sufficed	Court: sufficiency argument rendered moot by reversal on sentencing/abuse-of-discretion grounds
Whether sentences (jail and fines for filings 2–5) were contrary to law	Anderson: excessive/contrary to statutory remedies	Mitchell: trial court within contempt powers to punish violations	Court: criminal penalties (50 days jail, $2,600 fines) were unreasonable under circumstances and vacated; other assignments moot

Denovcheck v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (discussion of contempt classifications)
State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (distinguishing civil vs. criminal contempt and purposes)
State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201 (criminal contempt requires constitutional safeguards)
State v. Chavez-Juarez, 185 Ohio App.3d 189 (treatment of direct vs. indirect contempt)
State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69 (appellate review and contempt discretion)
Mayer v. Bristow, 91 Ohio St.3d 3 (constitutionality and purpose of R.C. 2323.52 vexatious-litigant statute)
Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (limits on collateral attack of final civil judgments)
Coe v. Erb, 59 Ohio St. 259 (historical authority on collateral attack doctrine)