The Docks Venture, L.L.C. v. Dashing Pacific Group, Ltd. (Slip Opinion)
141 Ohio St. 3d 107
Ohio2014Background
- Dashing Pacific leased two adjoining Toledo properties to Docks Venture; each lease required Dashing Pacific to install separate utility meters and to fix distribution lines if mis-billing occurred.
- Docks Venture sublet the smaller property to El Vaquero and opened Admiral’s American Grill on the larger premises.
- Docks Venture filed suit on Jan 24, 2012 for breach of the meter obligation, seeking specific performance and damages.
- A preliminary injunction on Apr 19, 2012 ordered Dashing Pacific to install separate meters for gas, electricity, and water within 30 days.
- On Oct 2, 2012 the court found meters installed but cross-lines caused disproportionate billing, violating the injunction, and imposed a $1,000 per day contempt sanction unless corrected.
- The Sixth District held contempt was final and appealable regardless of purge conditions; the Ohio Supreme Court clarified finality and allowed an additional appeal on purge compliance after execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is a civil-contempt judgment with purge conditions final and appealable? | Docks Venture contends finality occurs only after purge failure and execution. | Dashing Pacific argues finality occurs at sentencing with purge conditions. | Final at sentencing; purge-execution appeal available for purge-compliance questions. |
| May contemnor appeal purge-conditions compliance after sentence execution? | Yes, additional appeal after purge execution. | No, only the contempt finding is final. | Contemnor may appeal purge-conditions compliance following execution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks on Behalf of Feiock v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1988) (criminal contempt final and immediate appealable; punitive in nature)
- Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (Ohio 2001) (civil contempt remedial; purge opportunity affects finality)
- International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994) (contempt fines civil/remedial; purge opportunity matters)
- Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509 (Ohio 2012) (contemnor lacks counsel at purge hearing; separation of contempt and purge questions)
- Davis v. Davis, 2004-Ohio-4390 (Ohio 11th Dist.) (conflicted with Ohio rule about finality of purge-conditional contempt)