Sullivan v. Pittman
2022 Ohio 1211
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Mother (appellant) is the parent of two minors; Mother’s step‑father (Third‑Party Defendant) previously had legal custody; appellees were awarded custody in Feb. 2018.
- Multiple post‑custody motions were filed (2019–2020): modification of parenting time, visitation, reallocation of parental rights, child support, and reciprocal contempt motions; hearings occurred Sept. 29–30, 2020.
- The magistrate’s Dec. 7, 2020 entry denied Mother’s requests, granted supervised visitation to Third‑Party Defendant, partially granted child support modification, and found Mother and Third‑Party Defendant in contempt (with short jail terms and purge conditions) for violating an April 22, 2020 order and for insurance issues.
- Appellants filed timely objections (Dec. 21, 2020; supplemental Feb. 8, 2021), challenging contempt findings, the scope/ambiguity of the April 22 order (re: “contact”), and the insurance contempt finding.
- The trial court’s July 27, 2021 entry sustained some objections, remanded limited matters to the magistrate for further evidence, declared others moot, but did not rule on several contempt objections.
- The Fifth District held the July 27, 2021 judgment was not a final, appealable order because the trial court failed to rule on all timely objections to the magistrate; the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court’s July 27, 2021 entry is a final, appealable order | Sullivan: trial court’s remand and partial rulings are sufficient; magistrate’s contempt entry is appealable | Pittman: (implicitly) trial court did not resolve all objections so no final order exists | Court: Not final/appealable—trial court failed to rule on several timely objections to the magistrate, so appellate jurisdiction lacking |
| 2. Whether April 22, 2020 order was vague/ambiguous as to “contact” (contempt invalid) | Sullivan: order ambiguous re: "contact" and COVID precautions, so contempt cannot be based on vague term | Pittman: magistrate reasonably concluded appellants violated the order by exposing children to prohibited contacts | Court: Did not decide merits—could not reach because appeal not final; emphasized trial court must rule on objections first |
| 3. Whether contempt findings re: visits with Roberts and Kozlowski were against manifest weight | Sullivan: evidence did not show prohibited contact; findings against manifest weight | Pittman: magistrate’s factual findings supported contempt | Court: Did not address weight—dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because objections unresolved |
| 4. Whether Mother was in contempt for failing to maintain auto insurance | Sullivan: clear‑and‑convincing evidence lacking that uninsured vehicle transported children | Pittman: magistrate found insurance violation supported contempt | Court: Did not rule on the merits; dismissal for lack of final appealable order prevented review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (appellate courts may review only final orders)
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (1989) (trial court’s use of Civ.R. 54(B) language does not automatically render an order final)
- Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, Local 8 v. Vaughn Indus., LLC, 116 Ohio St.3d 335 (2007) (when multiple claims/parties exist, R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) requirements apply for finality)