2013 Ohio 2840
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Michele Rich filed for divorce from Gary Rich, and the court adopted a Shared Parenting Plan.
- In 2010 a new Shared Parenting Plan was adopted; Michele later alleged Gary deprived her of visitation and access to medical appointments and hindered telephone contact with the children.
- Gary was found in contempt for infringing Michele's parenting time, with the finding noted in a March 8, 2012 Judgment Entry and a subsequent entry referencing the contempt.
- On October 5, 2012 the trial court ordered Gary to serve 30 days in jail but suspended the sentence conditioned on him obeying laws and court orders and promoting a loving relationship between him and the children for five years, plus costs.
- Gary appealed contending the court improperly conditioned the suspension on future conduct and did not provide a purge mechanism, and that the order did not permit purge of the contempt.
- The Eleventh District reversed and remanded for a proper purge order, while leaving the underlying 30-day sentence intact to be purged upon compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the suspension be conditioned on future conduct in civil contempt? | Rich argues the conditional suspension regulates future conduct without a purge mechanism. | Rich suggests the court may impose conditional sanctions in civil contempt. | Conditioned suspension requiring purge is improper; remand for proper purge order. |
| Was the 30-day jail term proper given the civil-contempt context and purge requirements? | Rich contends the jail term is appropriate but invalid without a purge mechanism. | Rich contends the sanction serves the contempt purpose. | The 30-day sentence was proper but remand needed for a valid purge order. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 417 N.E.2d 1249 (1981) () (civil vs. criminal contempt distinctions guide proper sanctions)
- In re Beynenson, 2013-Ohio-341 (11th Dist. 2013) (appearance of civil contempt; purge requirements discussed)
- Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201, 400 N.E.2d 386 (1980) () (purge requirement in civil contempt tied to opportunity to purge)
- Frey v. Frey, 197 Ohio App.3d 273, 2011-Ohio-6012, 967 N.E.2d 24 (3rd Dist. 2011) (lack of purge language invalidates contempt sanction when it regulates future conduct)