Zupan v. Zupan, 2013 Ohio 2629

Divorce judgment adopting separation agreement entered Feb. 23, 2012; case involved a contempt motion filed July 27, 2012 claiming appellee failed to notify address and to maintain the marital home.
Magistrate found no contempt, ruled decree did not require address notification, appellee's address was known to appellant, no proven deterioration of the home, and appellant chose repairs to maximize profit and did not mitigate damages.
Appellant objected to the magistrate’s report but did not provide a transcript; trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings as its own; court reviewed only legal conclusions due to lack of transcript.
Three assignments of error were raised: (I) failure to serve notice of relocation/address; (II) service of process renders moot sanctions moot; (III) appellant must not be required to accept property in as-is condition and need not mitigate.
Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, overruling the assignments of error and holding appellee was not in contempt.
Judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to serve notice of relocation addresses contempt	Zupan argues appellee must notify him of address under Local Rule 20.	Piciacchio contends decree incorporated Local Rule 20 only for clarifying parenting, not for notifying address.	No abuse of discretion; appellee not in contempt.
Whether knowledge of address moots contempt for failure to provide address	Zupan claims mootness because he obtained appellee’s address.	Rule 20 usage and decree clarified, not required address notification.	Issue deemed moot and unnecessary to support contempt finding; no contempt.
Whether property condition and mitigation affect contempt finding	Zupan asserts need to mitigate damages and accept property as-is.	Evidence did not show failure to maintain home; no need to determine as-is duty.	Independent basis supports no contempt; issues not needed to decide.

Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728 (1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing magistrate decisions when transcript not provided)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion review framework and standards)