White v. White, 2016 Ohio 7628

Curtis and Vondelere White divorced in 1979; the decree did not grant Vondelere any interest in Curtis’s GM retirement benefits.
Over decades Vondelere filed multiple unsuccessful actions seeking a portion of Curtis’s retirement; in 2015 she filed an Amended Stipulated QDRO that contained handwritten portions and lacked signatures.
Curtis, unaware of the filing, moved to vacate; the domestic relations court vacated the Amended QDRO, and this court later affirmed that vacatur.
Curtis moved for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 for frivolous conduct and sought contempt; after a hearing the magistrate found the Amended QDRO filing frivolous, denied contempt, and awarded costs plus $350 in attorney fees.
Curtis submitted billing statements showing $4,040.50 in fees but offered no expert testimony or other evidence of reasonableness; the magistrate awarded only the local-rule prima facie amount ($350) because Curtis did not meet the local-rule requirement for expert proof.
The domestic relations judge adopted the magistrate’s decision; Curtis appealed arguing the local rule’s expert requirement impermissibly imposed an evidentiary burden beyond R.C. 2323.51. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by requiring expert testimony to establish reasonableness of attorney fees sought under R.C. 2323.51	White (Curtis) argued R.C. 2323.51 alone governs sanctions and his billing statements showing $4,040.50 were sufficient without expert testimony	Vondelere (and the court) argued local rule Mont. D.R. 4.27(G) applies; when fees exceed the prima facie amount, expert evidence or other proof of reasonableness is required and billing statements alone are insufficient	Court held local-rule requirement for additional evidence (including expert testimony) is consistent with R.C. 2323.51; absent evidence of reasonableness for a non‑nominal fee, awarding the prima facie $350 was not an abuse of discretion

Swanson v. Swanson, 48 Ohio App.2d 85 (explains that hours × rate alone is insufficient to prove reasonableness of attorney fees)
Bittner v. Tri‑Cnty. Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (appellate review of fee awards will not disturb amounts unless so unreasonable as to shock the conscience)
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (trial court retains jurisdiction over collateral matters, e.g., contempt, during pendency of appeal)