Sopczak v. Sopczak
2017 Ohio 7519
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jonathan and Nichole Sopczak married in 2006 and have three minor children; Jonathan filed for divorce in August 2014.
- Trial court issued a September 26, 2014 temporary order requiring Jonathan to pay $1,550/month temporary spousal support beginning 10/01/14, with option to discharge by paying mortgage/insurance/taxes and basic utilities if Nichole remained in the marital residence.
- Jonathan stopped making full payments in early 2015 (asserting a short-sale plan) and paid only utilities intermittently; Nichole filed a motion to show cause for contempt in May 2015.
- The parties entered an agreed June 17, 2015 order: withholding for support, June payment directly to Nichole, arrearage and contempt reserved for final hearing; the order also set an expanded parenting-time schedule.
- Magistrate (post-final hearing) found Jonathan in contempt for violating the temporary spousal support order, awarded Nichole $850/month spousal support for 35 months, and granted parenting time exceeding the standard order; the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision but the final journal entry mistakenly recited the standard visitation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for failing to pay temporary spousal support | Jonathan: failure to pay did not injure Nichole; payments were suspended per realtor/short-sale advice and support was intended to let Nichole stay in the house | Nichole: no agreement to stop support; Jonathan stopped full payments and she had to cover expenses; temporary order required payment regardless of mortgage status | Court: affirmed contempt finding — order required support; Jonathan’s unilateral suspension was not permitted and trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Award of spousal support at final decree | Jonathan: Nichole failed to present competent, credible evidence of income to justify support | Nichole: presented testimony and documents (subpoenaed) and claimed income; Jonathan’s higher earnings and part-time work history support need/ability analysis | Court: affirmed award — trial court considered R.C. 3105.18 factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Parenting time amount and journal discrepancy | Jonathan: trial court should have continued the June agreed expanded schedule (Fri after work–Tue morning alternating weeks or his proposed Thu evening–Mon morning) to promote frequent contact | Nichole: had previously agreed to expanded time and did not object to magistrate’s plan; concern about scheduling conflicts and children’s routine | Court: magistrate’s expanded schedule was reasonable; however final decree’s recitation of the standard order (less time) was a clerical/typographical error and limiting to standard order was an abuse of discretion — remanded to correct and implement expanded schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (2000) (contempt defined as disobedience of a court order)
- Denovchek v. Board of Trumbull County Commissioners, 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (1988) (contempt power inherent to courts)
- State ex rel. Delco Moraine Div., General Motors Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 48 Ohio St.3d 43 (1989) (appellate review of contempt is for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Layne v. Layne, 83 Ohio App.3d 559 (1992) (trial court must weigh R.C. 3105.18 factors in spousal support determinations)