Rose v. Rose, 2013 Ohio 5136

Gary and Drazana Rose divorced on June 15, 2000; the decree adopted a separation agreement requiring Gary to pay Drazana $5,000 for home equity and $10,000 in staggered spousal support ($5,000 by June 1, 2005 and $5,000 by June 1, 2010).
Agreement included penalty language making larger sums immediately due if specific payments were missed and interest running from June 14, 2000 on remaining balances.
Gary paid the equity payment and the 2005 $5,000 spousal-support installment but did not pay the $5,000 due June 1, 2010.
Drazana filed a motion for contempt (motion to show cause) on March 12, 2012; a magistrate found Gary in contempt on January 10, 2013 and awarded Drazana $5,000 plus statutory interest from June 14, 2000 and $3,887.50 in attorney fees.
Magistrate sentenced Gary to 30 days in jail but allowed purge: within 30 days he could (a) pay the full judgment (approximately $10,729.90 with interest) or (b) make written arrangements with Drazana to fully satisfy the judgment.
Trial court overruled Gary’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision; Gary appeals, arguing the purge conditions were unreasonable or impossible to satisfy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing purge conditions for civil contempt that were unreasonable or impossible to comply with	Rose argued the lump-sum purge requirement (roughly $10,729.90) was unreasonable given his alleged decreased income and that requiring written arrangements was impossible because Drazana could refuse	Drazana argued Rose offered no evidence of inability to pay and that the magistrate found his testimony not credible; she had an interest in obtaining payment so an agreement was feasible	Court affirmed: purge conditions were neither unreasonable nor impossible; Rose offered no evidence of inability to pay and magistrate found willfulness, not inability, justified contempt and purge terms

Burchett v. Miller, 123 Ohio App.3d 550 (1997) (trial court abuses discretion by imposing purge conditions that are unreasonable or impossible)
Carroll v. Detty, 113 Ohio App.3d 708 (1996) (any civil-contempt sanction must allow the contemnor an opportunity to purge the contempt)