Petersheim v. Petersheim
100 N.E.3d 1019
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jessica Fry and Joshua Petersheim divorced; their separation agreement allocated the 2006 Dodge Durango (titled in Joshua’s name) to Fry, subject to outstanding debt to Marine Federal Credit Union, and required Fry to indemnify and hold Joshua harmless for that debt.
- Joshua filed a motion for contempt on June 25, 2015, alleging Fry failed to timely pay the vehicle debt, harming his credit and ability to obtain loans; he sought contempt, refinancing order, damages, and attorney fees.
- At the magistrate hearing Fry testified she had been late on some payments but was current when the contempt motion was filed and had traded in the vehicle within a month after the motion was filed, extinguishing the debt prior to the hearing.
- The magistrate found Fry in contempt by clear and convincing evidence, "sentenced" her to three days in jail and a $250 fine, suspended those sanctions on condition she pay Joshua’s $1,350 attorney fees and court costs; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Fry objected, the trial court overruled her objections, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court improperly imposed criminal contempt sanctions without criminal-due-process protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fry) | Defendant's Argument (Petersheim) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions imposed were civil or criminal contempt | Proceedings were civil; if criminal sanctions imposed, Fry lacked requisite criminal-due-process protections | Sought civil contempt to coerce/compensate and to reflect harm to his credit; fault should be assigned to Fry | Court held sanctions were criminal in nature (unconditional fine and jail sentence) and criminal-due-process protections were not afforded, violating Fry’s rights |
| Whether evidence supported contempt given Fry’s compliance at time of motion and extinguishment of debt before hearing | Fry was current when motion filed and had extinguished the debt before the hearing, so contempt was improper | Argued Fry’s pattern of late payments harmed his credit and refusal to hold him harmless justified contempt and sanctions | Court found the magistrate’s factual findings (late payments harmed credit) but did not resolve on merits because procedural due-process error required reversal |
| Whether the standard of proof applied was appropriate | Fry argued magistrate used incorrect standard and lacked criminal protections | Petersheim proceeded under civil-contempt theory; magistrate used clear-and-convincing standard | Court emphasized criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and criminal procedural rights, which were not provided here |
| Whether imposed monetary sanctions (attorney fees/costs) were appropriate | Fry challenged amount as excessive and sanctions as punitive | Petersheim justified fees and costs as condition to suspend sanctions | Court found resolution of fee/cost issues moot after concluding criminal-due-process violation and thus declined to decide these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist. Council 51, 35 Ohio St.2d 197 (discusses distinction between direct/indirect and civil/criminal contempt)
- Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (character/purpose distinction between criminal and civil contempt)
- Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (necessity to clarify contempt sanction as civil or criminal to determine due process required)
- Gompers v. Buck’s Stove and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (criminal contempt requires presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt)