Schmidt v. Worthington
2011 Ohio 4088
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Schmidt and Worthington were divorced in 1998; a 2007 post-decree required health insurance for their three children and made appellant responsible for 100% of uninsured medical expenses.
- On February 4, 2010, appellee filed a show-cause motion alleging unpaid medical bills for a child; an evidentiary hearing occurred July 30, 2010.
- Magistrate found contempt on October 15, 2010, recommending 30 days in jail, suspended upon appellant paying a lump-sum within 90 days.
- Appellant objected on October 29, 2010 and later moved for a Civ.R. 59 new trial on December 3, 2010.
- The trial court overruled objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and denied the Civ.R. 59 motion on December 16, 2010; appellant appealed January 11, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether findings failed to state insurance coverage for the daughter | Schmidt contends the court must specify appellant’s health coverage for the daughter. | Worthington argues findings need not address coverage if not requested. | Overruled; failure to request findings defeats this objection. |
| Whether the new-trial denial was proper given evidence of coverage after judgment | Schmidt asserts newly discovered evidence shows coverage; new trial should be granted. | Worthington contends no basis for new trial; evidence not meriting relief. | Overruled; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether trial court erred in denying new trial based on ineffective assistance | Schmidt claims ineffective assistance prevented presenting crucial insurance evidence. | Worthington argues civil context does not recognize ineffective-assistance grounds for new trial. | Overruled; civil contempt context bars ineffective-assistance grounds. |
| Whether the motion for new trial was timely | Schmidt contends timeliness was misapplied to bar merits-based consideration. | Worthington asserts timely filing rules controlled the result. | Overruled; merits-based denial supports the outcome regardless of timeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmkuhl v. Vermillion, 2006-Ohio-3701 (Ohio App. Dist.) (absence of requested findings limits appellate objections)
- Sharp v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 307 (1995) (trial-court discretion in new trial matters)
- Adeen v. Ohio Department of Commerce, 2006-Ohio-3604 (Ohio App. Dist.) (new-trial standard and diligence requirements)
- Sexton v. Haines, 2011-Ohio-3531 (Ohio App. Dist.) (ineffectiveness not available in civil contempt context)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (standard for new-trial requests in civil cases)
- Fidler v. Fidler, 2008-Ohio-4688 (Ohio App. Dist.) (contempt context limits review of ineffective-assistance claims)
- In re Merryman/Wilson Children, 2004-Ohio-3174 (Stark App.) (advisory rulings and finality of appellate decisions)
- State v. Bistricky, 1990-Ohio App.3d 395 (Ohio App. Dist.) (timeliness and merits in post-conviction/post-decree challenges)