2021 Ohio 2003
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Stephanie N. Marshall (pro se) appealed the trial court’s April 29, 2020 decision denying: two contempt motions (against FCCSEA and the court), a challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction, and a motion to recuse the judge and two magistrates.
- Appellant’s appellate brief contained no formal assignments of error as required by App.R. 16(A)(3); she primarily argued the judge should have recused for alleged bias related to child-support enforcement.
- Appellant alleged FCCSEA failed to immediately garnish her wages after she changed employers and sought contempt sanctions.
- The trial court found FCCSEA did not fail to comply with any court order and that any delay in issuing a new withholding order was understandable; garnishments were in place to collect arrears.
- The record showed appellant did not file an affidavit of disqualification with the Ohio Supreme Court under R.C. 2701.03 (the exclusive statutory remedy for alleging common-pleas judge bias).
- The Tenth District affirmed: it noted the procedural deficiency in the brief but addressed the arguments and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion nor err in denying recusal without the Supreme Court affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate brief sufficiency (App.R.16) | Marshall argued her arguments should be considered despite no formal assignments of error | Appellee/trial court argued briefs must contain assignments; absent them there is nothing to review (appellate discretion to dismiss) | Court noted the deficiency but proceeded to review the principal arguments in the interests of justice and affirmed the judgment |
| Recusal / judicial bias | Marshall claimed the trial judge was biased and unable or unwilling to apply federal guidelines in child-support collection, so judge should recuse | Trial court/defendant emphasized presumption of judicial impartiality and that disqualification claims under R.C. 2701.03 must be pursued by affidavit to the Ohio Supreme Court | Court held Marshall failed to invoke the exclusive statutory remedy (no affidavit filed); recusal/disqualification is for the Supreme Court to decide; denial of recusal was proper |
| Contempt claim against FCCSEA (failure to garnish after job change) | Marshall alleged FCCSEA should be held in contempt for not immediately garnishing wages after she changed employers | FCCSEA and trial court said there was no court-order noncompliance; delay was understandable; withholding subsequently issued and arrears being collected | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard for contempt; found the three contempt elements unmet and affirmed the trial court’s denial of contempt relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10 (standards for contempt/appellate review of contempt)
- Arthur Young & Co. v. Kelly, 68 Ohio App.3d 287 (three elements required to support contempt finding)
- In re Disqualification of Olivito, 74 Ohio St.3d 1261 (presumption of judicial integrity and disqualification principles)
- Jones v. Billingham, 105 Ohio App.3d 8 (R.C. 2701.03 is the exclusive means to claim common-pleas judge bias)
- Wardeh v. Altabchi, 158 Ohio App.3d 325 (party must present evidence to overcome presumption that judge is unbiased)