Maloney v. Maloney
2016 Ohio 7837
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced in 2014; divorce decree incorporated a separation agreement requiring equal division of investment/trust accounts, including a Procter & Gamble (P&G) profit sharing trust, but did not assign responsibility or set deadlines for completing the division.
- Wife agreed to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO); P&G rejected initial submissions and required additional information (e.g., valuation date) and changes before accepting a division.
- Husband moved to China and alleged he did not receive his full share; he filed two contempt motions and sought $500,000 for lost consulting income and travel plus attorney fees for prosecuting contempt motions.
- Parties negotiated over several months; after further revisions and awaiting Husband’s presence in the U.S., both signed the final QDRO at the contempt hearing; Wife paid Husband some funds (including $500,000) while Husband had not made certain payments owed to Wife.
- Magistrate denied Husband’s contempt motions and fee requests; trial court overruled Husband’s objections. Husband appealed, arguing the court should have found Wife in contempt and awarded fees.
Issues
| Issue | Maloney (Husband) Argument | Maloney (Wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife was in contempt for failing to divide P&G trust/assets | Wife acted unreasonably and delayed execution of the QDRO and distribution; contempt appropriate | No enforceable, specific court order existed (no responsible party or deadline); delays were due to negotiations and P&G’s requirements | Affirmed: no contempt—no specific order or deadline and actions occurred within a reasonable time given circumstances |
| Whether Husband was entitled to fees/expenses (travel, lost income, attorney fees) | Husband incurred substantial travel and lost consulting income prosecuting contempt and should be compensated | Fees discretionary; Wife not in contempt and no court-ordered deadline justified Husband’s expenditures | Affirmed: fees denied—trial court did not abuse discretion given lack of court order and Husband’s decisions to travel/retain experts contributed to costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Willis, 149 Ohio App.3d 50 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (when decree lacks a compliance deadline, a reasonable time may be used to judge contempt)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)