Mohr v. Mohr
2017 Ohio 1044
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anita and David Mohr divorced; final Divorce Decree (Apr. 17, 2015) classified certain tangible personal property as each spouse's separate property and directed remaining personal property to be auctioned with the marital residence.
- Wife had exclusive occupancy during proceedings and moved out Sept. 5, 2015; Husband inspected residence and reported multiple items missing that were intended for auction.
- Husband filed a contempt motion (Sept. 11, 2015) alleging Wife removed marital property and damaged the residence, causing the auction to be canceled; Wife filed a reciprocal contempt motion.
- At the contempt hearing, Husband submitted Exhibit B listing 29 items he said Wife removed; Wife admitted removing those items but said she relied on Exhibit 15 (submitted at divorce) showing separate property allocations.
- Trial court found Wife in contempt, ordered Wife to return the items listed in Exhibit B within 30 days and proceed with auction; the court did not impose additional sanctions and stayed Wife’s contempt motion pending auction.
- Wife appealed, arguing the Divorce Decree did not clearly specify 24 of the 29 items as prohibited from removal and thus contempt was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife was properly found in civil contempt for removing items from the marital residence intended for auction | Mohr: Decree and Exhibit 15 were vague; removed items were not identified as Husband's separate property and she reasonably believed items not listed as separate could be taken | Mohr (Husband): Items not designated as separate property in the Decree remained marital property and were required to stay for auction; Exhibit B items were marital property | Court affirmed: Decree clearly designated certain items as separate property; items not designated were marital and should have remained for auction, so contempt finding was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- Beach v. Beach, 99 Ohio App. 428 (Ohio Ct. App.) (definition of civil contempt for disobedience of court orders)
- Pedone v. Pedone, 11 Ohio App.3d 164 (Ohio Ct. App.) (intent is irrelevant to civil contempt; failure to follow court decree supports contempt)