Pendergraft v. Watts, 2011 Ohio 5649

CSEA appealed a DR court order enforcing a North Carolina child-support order registered under UIFSA, seeking arrears and ongoing payments.
The original order required Watts to pay $60 current support per month and $40 per month toward arrears, with all payments to OCSPC; $1,142 was past due at registration.
Watts was found in contempt in 2005 for failure to pay; a capias was issued but later dismissed after he was not apprehended.
In 2009, CSEA moved to show cause again; Watts did not appear; a magistrate found Watts’s North Carolina arrears reduced, but concluded Watts had not paid through CSEA and thus was not in contempt per the DR court’s order.
The magistrate adopted a finding of $5,060.74 arrears as of April 30, 2009 and ordered Watts to continue current payments plus $40 toward arrears; Watts’s absence and the manner of payment were central to the ruling.
The DR court adopted the magistrate’s decision, but this court later reversed, determining the magistrate misapplied the evidence and Watts was improperly found in substantial compliance, prompting remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Watts should have been found in contempt	Watts failed to pay as ordered and should be adjudicated contempt.	Watts’s payments or lack thereof were not properly attributable to OCSPC, and the court erred in contempt analysis.	Yes; court abused discretion by not finding contempt.
Whether the magistrate improperly created a defense for Watts in his absence	Magistrate fabricated Watts’s defense due to Watts’s absence at hearing.	No improper advocacy; findings were supported by evidence.	Yes; constitutes improper advocacy and abuse of discretion.
Whether substantial compliance was supported by evidence when Watts did not attend	Any apparent net arrears reduction implies compliance and absolves contempt.	Reduction lacked proof Watts paid through OCSPC; not substantial compliance.	No; not substantial compliance.
Whether the court properly treated arrears data from the originating jurisdiction	Original arrears data and reductions should guide contempt decision.	Unverified external reductions do not establish compliance with Ohio order.	No; misapplication of external arrears data.
Whether CSEA’s motion to show cause was properly construed as a contempt determination	Motion sought contempt; partial grant is improper absent contempt finding.	Partial relief can occur with arrears determination.	Yes; improper partial grant.

Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (1984) (contempt standard; intent not required; compliance imperative)
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971) (definition of contempt and sanctions)
Flinn, 7 Ohio App.3d 294 (1982) (indirect contempt and hearings requirements)
Pirtle v. Pirtle, 2001-Ohio-1539 (2001) (burden-shifting in contempt proceedings; hearing required)
Hueber v. Hueber, 2007-Ohio-913 (2007) (clear and convincing standard in contempt-related matters)
Strauss v. Strauss, 2010-Ohio-6166 (2010) (contempt standards and independent appellate review of magistrate findings)