Vail v. String , 2019 Ohio 984 ( 2019 )

[Cite as Vail v. String, 2019-Ohio-984.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 107112
ELIZABETH A. VAIL
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/
CROSS-APPELLANT
vs.
LINDSEY N. STRING
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT/
CROSS-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Domestic Relations Division
Case No. DR-91-214748
BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., Laster Mays, P.J., and Sheehan, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 21, 2019
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE
Deborah J. Michelson
David A. Kunselman
Miller Goler Faeges Lapine L.L.P.
1301 East 9th Street, Suite 2700
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1835
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Jonathan A. Rich
Zashin & Rich Co., L.P.A.
Ernst & Young Tower
950 Main Avenue, 4th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ALSO LISTED
ATTORNEY FOR MCDONALD & COMPANY
Henry V. Kerr
800 Superior Avenue
McDonald Investment Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant/cross-appellee Lindsey String (“String”) and his ex-wife,
plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant Elizabeth Vail (“Vail”), appeal from a decision of the Domestic
Relations Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (1) ordering String to pay
Vail $20,596 towards the cost of their daughter’s college education plus $4,588 in prejudgment
interest, (2) denying Vail’s motion to hold String in contempt for previously failing to pay his
share of those college expenses and (3) denying the parties’ mutual requests for an award of
attorney fees and legal expenses. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court.
Factual Background and Procedural History
The 1993 Agreement
{¶2} Vail and String were married in 1982 and divorced in 1993. They had one child,
Abigail, who was born in 1988. The divorce decree (the “1993 order”) incorporated a separation
agreement (the “1993 agreement”) pursuant to which String was to pay Vail $1,169 (plus a two
percent processing fee) per month in child support. String was also to provide medical, dental
and life insurance for Abigail (with Vail paying 25 percent and String paying 75 percent of any
“extraordinary medical expenses”) and to maintain disability and life insurance on his life for
Abigail’s benefit until she completed college.
{¶3} The 1993 agreement also provided, in relevant part:
The parties agree to share in the cost of an in-State, Ohio public university in a
ratio that reflects their income when Abigail reaches college age. Said costs shall
be room, board, tuition, books and laboratory fees.
{¶4} In 1995, String filed a motion to modify his child support on the ground that his
income had “decreased dramatically.” The Cuyahoga Job and Family Services — Office of
Child Support Services, formerly known as the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement
Agency, was granted leave to intervene and filed a motion to show cause based on String’s
failure to pay child support. The motions were resolved by an agreed judgment entry in April
1997. At that time, String’s child support arrearages exceeded $25,000. The trial court found
String to be in contempt of the court’s 1993 order and sentenced him to 30 days in jail or 200
hours of community service. String could purge his contempt by paying $2,550. The trial court
thereafter reduced String’s monthly child support obligation to $650 per month (plus a two
percent processing fee), and he was ordered to pay an additional $50 each month toward
arrearages.
The 2002 Agreement
{¶5} In 2002, String filed another motion to modify his child support obligation on the
ground that he had experienced “a substantial decrease in income as a result in the change of his
employment situation.” The motion was resolved by a “settlement agreement” (the “2002
agreement”) that was incorporated by reference into an “Agreed Judgment Entry with Child
Support Modification” entered December 30, 2002 (the “2002 order”). At the time of the 2002
agreement, String owed Vail approximately $30,000 in child support arrearages. The parties
agreed that “[a]s and for payment of all arrearages owed by Lindsey String to [Vail] for child
support and in satisfaction of all child support currently owed,” String would pay Vail $30,000
(for which he had secured a loan) “contemporaneous with the execution of [the] agreement and
the Court’s acceptance of an Agreed Child Support Modification.” The parties also agreed that
(1) Vail would provide health insurance coverage for Abigail and pay the first $1,000 annually of
any uninsured or unreimbursed medical or health care costs for Abigail, (2) String and Vail
would share equally in any uninsured or unreimbursed medical or health care costs for Abigail
beyond the first $1,000 and (3) String’s future monthly child support obligation would be
reduced to $371. The 2002 agreement also included the following language:
WHEREAS, the parties desire to resolve any and all matters concerning
the support of Abigail without further delay;
***
4. It is specifically understood by the parties hereto that the foregoing
payment by Lindsey String shall hereafter extinguish any and all monies
owed by Lindsey String for past due child support payments or any other
failure by Lindsey String to perform obligations owed by him with respect
to the support of Abigail, resulting in a zero arrearage as of 12/30/02 as to
all child support obligations by Lindsey String.
***
7. Entirety of Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement
between the parties hereto with respect to the support of Abigail by
Lindsey String and Elizabeth String. This agreement supersedes all prior
discussions, negotiations and agreements between the parties hereto and
may not be modified, except in writing signed by the parties affected
thereby.
Efforts to Enforce the Alleged Obligation to Share in Abigail’s College Expenses
{¶6} String’s child support obligation terminated in 2007 when Abigail graduated from
high school. In the fall of 2007, Abigail began attending college at Miami University of Ohio.
She graduated in the spring of 2011. In 2008, Vail filed, pro se, a motion to show cause seeking,
among other things, to compel String to pay his share of Abigail’s college expenses under the
1993 agreement and order. The amount of college expenses incurred or to be incurred was not
specified in the motion. String opposed the motion, asserting that, based on the 2002 agreement,
he had no obligation to share in the cost of Abigail’s college expenses. In August 2008, Vail
voluntarily dismissed her motion to show cause without prejudice.1
{¶7} In May 2013, Vail’s then-counsel sent a letter to String requesting that String
contact him to discuss his obligation to share in the cost of Abigail’s college expenses or face a
motion to show cause. String’s counsel responded to the letter, forwarding a copy of String’s
opposition to Vail’s July 2008 motion to show cause and setting forth String’s position that
“[c]ollege support is off the table” based on the 2002 agreement. String’s counsel stated that if
1
Vail claimed that she dismissed the motion after she was involved in a serious equestrian accident for
which she was hospitalized for 29 weeks.
Vail “continue[d] to move ahead without showing anything new from the last time she tried, this,
I will have to seek sanctions all the way.”
{¶8} In October 2016, Vail filed a second motion to show cause based on String’s failure
to pay his alleged share of Abigail’s college expenses and a motion to recover her attorney fees in
enforcing the obligation. Vail claimed that Abigail’s college expenses totaled $203,074.49,
consisting of $144,127.97 in loan balances in Vail’s name, $28,946.52 in student loan balances
in Abigail’s name, $15,000 in out-of-pocket expenses Vail paid for “room and board college
expenses not covered by student loans” and $15,000 in out-of-pocket expenses Abigail paid for
“room and board college expenses * * * not covered by student loans.” Once again, String
opposed the motion, asserting that his obligation to share in Abigail’s college expenses under the
1993 agreement and order was superseded by the 2002 agreement and order. String also filed a
motion for an award of “frivolous conduct and bad faith sanctions,” seeking an award of attorney
fees and litigation expenses under R.C. 2323.51(B), Ohio common law and Civ.R. 11, and a
motion to have Vail declared a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. String later withdrew his
motions for frivolous conduct, bad faith sanctions and to have Vail declared a vexatious litigator,
but maintained his request for attorney fees and legal expenses incurred in defending against
Vail’s motion to show cause.
The Trial Court’s Interpretation of the 2002 Agreement
{¶9} An evidentiary hearing on the motion to show cause was scheduled for July 17,
2017. Before the hearing began, the trial court issued a judgment entry in which it determined,
as a matter of law, that the 2002 agreement and order did not extinguish String’s obligation to
share in the cost of Abigail’s college education as set forth in the 1993 agreement and order.
The trial court explained:
The Court finds that the 2002 Agreed Judgment Entry clearly and
unambiguously resolved all then-pending issues as to child support. However, as
a matter of law, a promise to pay for an adult child’s college education is not child
support.
An agreement to pay for a child’s college education is a gift, “separate and
distinct from [a parent’s] obligation to support [a child] until they are
emancipated. McMillen v. McMillen, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 2009-COA-033,
2010-Ohio-2399, ¶ 23; accord, Jack [v. Jack, 139 Ohio App.3d 814, 824, 741
N.E.2d 1101 (7th Dist. 2000)]; see, also, Rubins v. Rubins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 61937, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 1558 [(Mar. 18, 1993)] (children’s college
trust funds created by terms of separation agreement are property division, not
support payment).
The Court finds that the 2003 Agreed Judgment Entry did not abrogate or
modify the provisions of the 1993 Separation Agreement regarding payment of the
daughter’s college expenses.
{¶10} Based on its decision, the trial court held that String was precluded from presenting
evidence of, or making further argument regarding, the 2002 agreement and order at the hearing
on the motion to show cause. Accordingly, the issues that remained to be decided at the hearing
were (1) the cost of Abigail’s tuition, room, board, books and laboratory fees at Miami
University, (2) Vail and String’s income when Abigail “reache[d] college age,” (3) whether
String should be held in contempt, (4) whether Vail’s claim for college expenses was barred by
one or more defenses raised by String, including laches and unclean hands, and (5) whether either
party was entitled to recover his or her attorney fees and legal expenses from the other. The
hearing commenced on July 17, 2017 and continued on October 25 and 26, 2017.
String’s Tender
{¶11} On August 22, 2017 — between the first and second days of the hearing — String
made an “unconditional tender” to Vail, reserving his rights and defenses and without admitting
or conceding liability. String tendered $17,783.33 — 22 percent of $80,883.34 — to Vail as the
“full amount that would have been payable by [him] under the 1993 Agreement” for Abigail’s
tuition, room, board, books and laboratory fees (less the scholarships and grants she received),
based on his calculation of his and Vail’s income in 2006 and 2007.
{¶12} Three days later, String filed a motion to dismiss Vail’s motion to show cause
based on his “unconditional tender of the full amount that Mrs. Vail claims is owed under the
1993 Agreement.” String argued that the tender purged any alleged contempt and rendered
Vail’s show cause motion moot as a matter of law.2 The trial court denied the motion.
Evidence Presented at the Hearing
{¶13} Abigail, Vail and String testified at the hearing on Vail’s motion to show cause.
Vail claimed that the total cost of Abigail’s tuition, room, board, books and laboratory fees at
Miami University totaled over $200,000.3 Neither Vail nor Abigail could identify the specific
amounts they paid for Abigail’s tuition, room, board, books and laboratory fees at Miami
University, but they claimed the sums could be deduced from the documents they had produced
to support their claim. These documents included (1) a statement of account from the bursar’s
office, (2) a printout of Abigail’s financial aid awards that included a list of scholarships received
and loans accepted and a hypothetical “cost of attendance” at Miami University, (3) a summary
Abigail prepared estimating her annual room and board expenses, (4) copies of checks Vail sent
to Abigail during the time she attended Miami University and (5) various documents relating to
school loan payments and balances.
2
It is unclear from the record whether Vail expressly rejected the tender or simply failed to respond to it.
3
The total varied throughout the course of the hearing. In her October 2016 motion to show cause, Vail
claimed the total amount incurred for Abigail’s college expenses under the 1993 agreement and order was
$203,074.49. In her opening argument, Vail claimed that the total amount was $211,587. In her closing
argument, she claimed it was $207,075.77.
{¶14} Aside from her 2008 motion to show cause, Vail never requested that String pay
his share of Abigail’s college expenses while Abigail was in college. Vail claimed that this was
because she did not know where String lived at that time. Abigail testified that after her mother
filed her 2008 motion to show cause, she met with her paternal uncle and asked him whether her
father could assist with her college expenses. Abigail testified that her uncle informed her that
her father lacked the resources to do so.
{¶15} With respect to the application of the income ratio and the calculation of the
parties’ proportionate shares of Abigail’s college expenses under the 1993 agreement and order,
Vail argued that the parties’ proportionate shares should be recalculated for each of the four years
Abigail attended Miami University. She asserted that because she was self-employed and had
“business expenses,” her “taxable income” rather than her “gross income” should be used when
applying the income ratio. Vail also argued that because String had only produced
documentation of his “social security earnings” for the relevant time period and not his tax
returns, “the Court should impute an income to him equal to or greater than [Vail’s income] for
each of the college years.”
{¶16} String disputed the amount Vail claimed was spent for Abigail’s tuition, room,
board, books and laboratory fees and argued that the “evidence” Vail presented of Abigail’s
college expenses — including undocumented “estimates” and testimony that conflicted with the
university’s documentation of incurred costs — did not satisfy Vail’s burden to present
competent, credible evidence establishing how much she and Abigail actually paid for Abigail’s
tuition, room, board, books and laboratory fees with reasonable certainty. String further argued
that Vail’s claim for reimbursement of Abigail’s college expenses was barred by laches, unclean
hands, impossibility of performance and String’s inability to pay. Based on his review of the
relevant documents, he claimed that the “total includable expenses” under the 1993 agreement
and order was, at most, $74,055.58 and that his share of that sum was 22 percent or $16,292.23.
{¶17} String testified that he had been unemployed since December 2016, that he had
been living off approximately $25,000 – $30,000 in funds his brother had released to him from a
trust that was part of his father’s estate and that his brother had also used funds from the trust to
pay String’s attorney fees. Because String had no source of income beyond the funds given to
him by his brother, Vail urged the trial court to “not make a judgment against him because he’s
probably judgment proof,” but rather, to find him in contempt and “order him to be incarcerated
until the amount of money that the Court orders would be paid.” Vail argued that a contempt
finding with a jail sentence would be the only way the trustee would be induced to release
additional trust funds to String to pay what he owed Vail under the 1993 agreement and order.
{¶18} Each party also sought to have the other pay the attorney fees and legal expenses
that were incurred in connection with the motion to show cause. Each party claimed that the
other had needlessly prolonged the litigation, had acted in bad faith, had violated the discovery
rules and had engaged in other forms of litigation misconduct, warranting an award of attorney
fees against the other party. Vail requested that String be ordered to pay her legal fees and
expenses totaling $31,929.20 and String requested that Vail be ordered to pay his legal fees and
expenses totaling $98,960.93.
{¶19} On December 19, 2017, the magistrate issued her decision. Both parties submitted
written objections and, on April 6, 2018, the trial court issued its judgment entry, ruling on the
parties’ objections, modifying the magistrate’s decision and adopting the magistrate’s decision as
modified.
{¶20} The magistrate found that, based on the documentation provided, Vail and String
were obligated to share $93,194 in college expenses. The trial court agreed with the
magistrate’s conclusion. The trial court further found that, for purpose of allocating college
expenses between the parents, Vail’s 2007 income was $82,122 and String’s 2007 income was
$23,298, such that Vail was responsible for 77.9 percent or $72,598 of Abigail’s college
expenses and String was responsible for 22.1 percent or $20,596 of Abigail’s college expenses.
The trial court also awarded Vail $4,588 in prejudgment interest from May 31, 2011 to March
31, 2018 under R.C. 1343.03(A), concluding that String’s obligation to pay his share of Abigail’s
college expenses became due on the date Abigail graduated from college. The trial court
declined to hold String in contempt for failure to pay his share of Abigail’s college expenses
because there was no evidence that Vail or Abigail ever presented String with any itemization,
explanation or documentation of the college expenses they sought to have him pay before Vail
filed her motion to show cause. The trial court also ruled that each party should bear the cost of
his or her own attorney fees.
{¶21} String appealed, raising the following three assignments of error for review:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The Trial Court committed reversible error
by ruling that the parties’ 2002 Settlement Agreement — which was approved,
adopted, and incorporated by the Court into the Court’s December 30, 2002
Agreed Judgment Entry — is not fully integrated and does not fully supersede the
parties’ 1993 Separation Agreement, including the Shared College Expense
Provision in the parties’ 1993 Separation Agreement.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The Trial Court committed reversible
error by awarding Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant prejudgment interest on the
judgment amount from May 31, 2011.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The Trial Court committed reversible
error by denying Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s Cross Motion for
Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses, which were incurred to successfully
defend him against Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s October 27, 2016
Motion to Show Cause and Motion for Attorney Fees.
{¶22} Vail cross-appealed, raising the following four cross-assignments of error for
review:
FIRST CROSS-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The Trial Court abused its
discretion in not finding the Appellant in contempt of court for his failure to pay
his share of the parties’ adult daughter’s college education expenses.
SECOND CROSS-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The Trial Court erred in not
awarding the Appellee a mandatory attorney fee award under Ohio Revised Code
Section 3109.05(C).
THIRD CROSS-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The Trial
Court abused its discretion in failing
to award the Appellee her reasonable
attorney fees and legal expenses
under Ohio Revised Code
3105.73(B).
FOURTH CROSS-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The Trial Court erred and
abused its discretion in determining the income ratio and Appellant’s resulting
payment obligation.
{¶23} For clarity and ease of discussion, we consider the parties’ assignments of error
and cross-assignments of error out of order and together where appropriate.
Law and Analysis
Interpretation of the 1993 and 2002 Agreements and Orders
{¶24} In his first assignment of error, String contends that the trial court erred in ordering
him to contribute to Abigail’s college costs. He contends that the 2002 agreement was “fully
integrated” and, therefore, superseded the promise he made in the 1993 agreement to share in the
cost of certain of Abigail’s college expenses. Vail contends that the 2002 agreement simply
resolved the child support arrearage String had owed Vail under the 1993 agreement and order
and did not alter what was, at that time, a future obligation to share in the cost of their
then-14-year-old daughter’s college education.
{¶25} When determining the rights and obligations of parties under a contract, the court’s
role is to give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed by the language used in the
agreement. Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130, 509 N.E.2d 411 (1987), paragraph
one of the syllabus (“The intent of the parties to a contract is presumed to reside in the language
they chose to employ in the agreement.”). Contracts are to be read as a whole, giving effect to
every part of the agreement. The words used by the parties are to be read in context and given
their plain, usual and ordinary meaning “unless manifest absurdity results, or unless some other
meaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents” of the agreement. Alexander v.
Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 374 N.E.2d 146 (1978), paragraph two of the
syllabus; Carroll Weir Funeral Home v. Miller, 2 Ohio St.2d 189, 192, 207 N.E.2d 747 (1965).
{¶26} The same rules of construction apply to separation agreements and settlement
agreements as to any other contract. See, e.g., Rubins, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 1558, at 6-7; In
re Netotea, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0120, 2006-Ohio-1445, ¶ 21; Countywide Petroleum
Co. v. Huntington Capital Invest. Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92778, 2010-Ohio-155, ¶ 13;
Ivanov v. Ivanov, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24998, 2010-Ohio-1963, ¶ 19. Likewise, an agreement
incorporated by reference into a court order is subject to the same rules of construction that
govern other contracts. See, e.g., Heskett Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Braunlin, 4th Dist. Ross No.
11CA3234, 2011-Ohio-6100, ¶ 11; Campbell v. Campbell, 5th Dist. Morgan No. 12 AP 0001,
2012-Ohio-3059, ¶ 15; McMillen, 2010-Ohio-2399, at ¶ 11.
{¶27} Where contract language is unambiguous, the contract must be enforced as
written, i.e., the court may look only to the plain language of the parties’ agreement to determine
the parties’ rights and obligations. Acuity, A Mut. Ins. Co. v. Siding & Insulation Co.,
2016-Ohio-1381, 62 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); see also Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) v. Toledo Edison
Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397, 2011-Ohio-2720, 953 N.E.2d 285, ¶ 37 (“When the language of a
written contract is clear, a court may look no further than the writing itself to find the intent of
the parties.”); Ward v. Eaton US Holdings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104841, 2017-Ohio-543, ¶ 9
(“A contract that is clear and unambiguous requires no real interpretation or construction and will
be given the effect called for by the plain language of the contract.”). In other words, where
there is no ambiguity, the trial court “may not construe, clarify or interpret the parties’ agreement
to mean anything outside of that which it specifically states.” Pavlich v. Pavlich, 9th Dist.
Summit No. 22357, 2005-Ohio-3305, ¶ 7. A court cannot, in the name of contract construction,
rewrite a contractual provision, add words or restrictions to an agreement or make a different or
better agreement than the parties made for themselves. See, e.g., F & L Ctr. Co. v. H.
Goodman, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83503, 2004-Ohio-5856, ¶ 9.
{¶28} If, on the other hand, contract language is ambiguous, a court may look to extrinsic
evidence to determine the parties’ intent. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216,
2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, ¶ 12. A contract term is ambiguous if its meaning cannot be
deciphered from reading the entire agreement or if the term is reasonably susceptible to more
than one interpretation. Willard Constr. Co. v. Olmsted Falls, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81551,
2003-Ohio-3018, ¶ 17. An agreement is not ambiguous simply because it may lead to hardship
or an inequitable result. Foster Wheeler Enviresponse v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities
Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353, 362, 678 N.E.2d 519 (1997).
{¶29} “A contract that appears to be a complete and unambiguous statement of the
parties’ contractual intent is presumed to be an integrated writing.” Bellman v. Am. Internatl.
Group, 113 Ohio St.3d 323, 2007-Ohio-2071, 865 N.E.2d 853, ¶ 11. “‘When two parties have
made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the
complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence, whether parol or otherwise, of
antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or
contradicting the writing.’” Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Soc. Natl. Bank, 75 Ohio St.3d 433, 440,
662 N.E.2d 1074 (1996), quoting 3 Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, Section 573, at 357 (1960).
{¶30} The determination of whether an ambiguity exists, whether a writing is a complete
integration and the meaning of unambiguous contract language are all questions of law, which
we review de novo. See, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio
St.3d 107, 108, 652 N.E.2d 684 (1995); Com-Corp Indus. v. H&H Mach. Tool Co., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 69318, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4795, 5 (Oct. 31, 1996); Benchmark Contrs., Inc.
v. Southgate Mgmt. L.L.C., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 13AP-390 and 13AP-394, 2014-Ohio-1254,
¶ 40.
{¶31} Applying the principles of construction set forth above, we find that the 2002
agreement is not ambiguous and that it was not intended to abrogate String’s obligation to share
in the costs of his daughter’s college education under the 1993 agreement and order.
{¶32} Not all payments made for the benefit of a child are “support” or “child support.”
See, e.g., Basista v. Basista, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83532, 2004-Ohio-4078, ¶ 15, 17, fn. 1
(“[A]n order to make a payment on behalf of a non-minor child is not support.”); In re Netotea,
2006-Ohio-1445, at ¶ 18 (payment of adult child’s college expenses did “not represent child
support”); see also Hartlieb v. Hartlieb, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 64635, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS
360, 11, fn. 2 (Feb. 3, 1994) (noting that “an agreement to pay college expenses is legally distinct
from a court order to pay child support on behalf of a minor”). Although a parent’s legal
obligation to support a child does not generally extend to a college education, a parent can agree
to provide, or to contribute towards, a college education for his or her child. An agreement by a
parent to pay all or part of a child’s college education is enforceable by the court if, as here, that
obligation is part of a separation agreement that has been incorporated into a divorce decree.
See, e.g., McMillen, 2010-Ohio-2399, at ¶ 11; Zanke v. Dunaway, 7th Dist. Belmont No.
99-BA-26, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4407, 8 (Sept. 22, 2000).
{¶33} Although the 2002 agreement contained an integration clause, “a subsequent
contract does not supersede or modify unambiguous terms in a preceding contract unless the
subsequent agreement specifically evidences an intent to do so.” Trinova Corp. v. Pilkington
Bros., 70 Ohio St.3d 271, 276-277, 638 N.E.2d 572 (1994). Here, we find no such intent. The
integration clause in the 2002 agreement is limited in subject matter. It states that it “contains
the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the support of Abigail by Lindsey
String and Elizabeth String.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶34} String argues that if the term “support” is given its plain and ordinary meaning, the
phrase “support of Abigail” as used in the integration clause of the 2002 agreement must be read
(1) to encompass String’s prior obligation to contribute to Abigail’s college expenses and (2) to
have extinguished that obligation. We disagree.
{¶35} We cannot read the integration clause in isolation but must read it in context, as
part of the 2002 agreement as a whole. Reading the agreement in its entirety, we believe it is
clear that the parties intended the 2002 agreement to extinguish String’s past due child support
obligations, not his future obligation to share in the cost of a college education for his
then-14-year-old child.
{¶36} Paragraph 1 of the 2002 agreement states that String’s $30,000 payment is being
made “[a]s and for payment of all arrearages owed by Lindsey String to [Vail] for child support
and in satisfaction of all child support currently owed.” (Emphasis added.) Paragraph 4 further
states that “[i]t is specifically understood by the parties hereto that the foregoing payment by
Lindsey String shall hereafter extinguish any and all monies owed by Lindsey String for past due
child support payments or any other failure by Lindsey String to perform obligations owed by
him with respect to the support of Abigail, resulting in a zero arrearage as of 12/30/02 as to all
child support obligations by Lindsey String.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶37} According to the recitals of the 2002 agreement, String’s child support arrearages
at the time of the 2002 agreement were “approximately $30,000.” At the time of the 2002
agreement, there was no “failure” by String with respect to his obligation to pay a portion of
Abigail’s college expenses. There is no language to suggest that the $30,000 payment was also
intended to relieve String of his future obligation to share in Abigail’s college expenses.
{¶38} Although the 2002 agreement may have constituted an integration as to the matters
specifically covered by the agreement, i.e., String’s liability for “past due child support
payments” and “failure” to perform obligations then “owed by him” “with respect to the support
of Abigail,” we do not find that it was intended to relieve him of his future obligation to share in
the cost of Abigail’s college expenses.
{¶39} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in determining that the 2002 agreement did
not abrogate String’s obligation to pay a proportionate share of Abigail’s college expenses as set
forth in the 1993 agreement and order.
{¶40} String’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Refusal to Hold String in Contempt
{¶41} In her first cross-assignment of error, Vail contends that the trial court erred and
abused its discretion by failing to find String in contempt for failing to pay his share of Abigail’s
college expenses.
{¶42} A court has authority to enforce its orders through contempt sanctions. Contempt
is “a disregard of, or disobedience to, an order or command of judicial authority.” Kapadia v.
Kapadia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96910, 2012-Ohio-808, ¶ 26. Disobedience of a lawful court
order is punishable as contempt. See R.C. 2705.02(A). To support a finding of contempt, the
moving party must establish by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of a valid court
order, (2) that the offending party had knowledge of the order and (3) that the offending party
violated the order. In re K.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97991, 2012-Ohio-5507, ¶ 11. Clear and
convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that produces in the mind of the trier of
facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. Cross v. Ledford, 161
Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus; Phelps v. Saffian, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 106475, 2018-Ohio-4329, ¶ 53; In re Contempt of Tracy Digney,
2015-Ohio-4278, 45 N.E.3d 650, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). We review a trial court’s decision whether to
hold a party in contempt for abuse of discretion. Phelps at ¶ 53; Hissa v. Hissa, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 99498 and 100229, 2014-Ohio-1508, ¶ 21; Kapadia at ¶ 26.
{¶43} An abuse of discretion occurs where a trial court’s decision is unreasonable,
arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140(1983); see also Ockunzzi v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102347, 2015-Ohio-2708, ¶ 9
(“‘Abuse of discretion’ is a term of art, describing a judgment neither comporting with the
record, nor reason.”). “A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that
would support that decision.” AAAA Ents. Inc. v. River Place Community Urban
Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). An abuse of discretion may
also be found when the trial court “applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal
standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Thomas v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio
App.3d 401, 2008-Ohio-1720, 892 N.E.2d 454, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).
{¶44} In this case, the magistrate declined to hold String in contempt on the ground that
“[t]here was no presentment,” i.e., Vail and Abigail “never sent [String] any itemization of bills
or explanation of costs.” Citing Hetterick v. Hetterick, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-02-002,
2013-Ohio-15, ¶ 38-41, and Hartlieb, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 360, at 5, 9, 13, the trial court
agreed. The trial court found that although an order was in place compelling String to pay a
proportionate share of certain of Abigail’s college expenses and although String was on notice
that his daughter was attending college, “there is no evidence he was ever presented with a sum
certain due until this litigation commenced.” The record supports these findings. There is no
evidence that String could have obtained the information necessary to calculate his proportionate
share of Abigail’s college expenses other than from Vail or Abigail.
{¶45} In Hetterick, the Twelfth District reversed the trial court’s finding that a father
was in contempt for failure to comply with a court order to pay college expenses where there was
no clear and convincing evidence that the father was “aware of the order as it related to what
exact colleges expenses were due and owing.” Hetterick at ¶ 38-41. The court held that the
daughter “had to have first presented the bills” to the father before it could be said that he knew
“what payments he had been ordered to make.” Id. at ¶ 38-41.
{¶46} In Hartlieb, this court reversed a contempt finding based on the father’s failure to
pay his son’s expenses at the Cleveland Institute of Art where a court order existed obligating
the father to pay for the “expenses” of his son’s education at a “college or a university, or a trade
school or other vocational type of school,” but the specific amount he was to pay had not been
“reduced to judgment” and the father had not otherwise been “ordered to commence payments on
a specified basis.” Hartlieb at 1-3, 5, 9, 13-14; see also Ockunzzi, 2015-Ohio-2708, at ¶ 1,
12-16 (where separation agreement incorporated into divorce decree did not specify date by
which husband was obligated to personally pay wife sum from retirement account, trial court
erred in concluding that husband was in violation of separation agreement and abused its
discretion in finding him to be in contempt of court).
{¶47} Vail argues that Hetterick is distinguishable4 because, unlike the father in that case,
String disputed he had an obligation to pay any of Abigail’s college expenses. As such, Vail
contends prelitigation presentment of invoices or other documentation of Abigail’s college
expenses to String would have been a “futile act” and should not have precluded a contempt
finding. Vail cites no authority in support of her futility argument.
{¶48} On the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court’s refusal to hold String in
contempt was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Accordingly, we overrule Vail’s first
cross-assignment of error.
Determination of the Parties’ Income Ratio
{¶49} In her fourth cross-assignment of error, Vail contends that the trial court erred (1)
in using only the parties’ income in 2007 (rather than the parties’ income for all four years
Abigail was in college) to calculate the income ratio used in allocating Abigail’s college
expenses and (2) in calculating the income ratio using an income figure of $82,122 for Vail
rather than using her “total income” of $69,013. 5 Vail contends that pursuant to R.C.
4
Vail does not address Hartlieb in her briefs.
5
In addition to the $82,122 in “[w]ages, salaries, tips, etc.” listed on line 7 of Vail’s 2007 federal income tax
3119.01(C), which defines “income” and “gross income” for purposes of calculating parents’
child support obligations, the trial court abused its discretion “when it failed to deduct [Vail’s]
business expenses from her gross receipts in determining her income for child support purposes.”
{¶50} Once again, we disagree. First, the 1993 agreement states that college costs are to
be allocated between the parties “in a ratio that reflects their income when Abigail reaches
college age.” There is no dispute that Abigail “reach[ed] college age” in 2007 after she
graduated from high school. Accordingly, the trial court properly determined that it was the
parties’ income in 2007 that controlled in determining each party’s share of Abigail’s college
expenses.
{¶51} Second, in this case, the trial court was not determining Vail’s income for child
support purposes. The trial court was determining Vail’s income in order to apply the income
ratio agreed to by the parties for the purpose of calculating their proportionate shares of Abigail’s
college expenses. The 1993 agreement and order did not define “income.” Accordingly, the
trial court did not err in concluding that the statutory definition of income for child support
purposes did not apply.
{¶52} In this case, the trial court used $82,122 — the amount listed on line 7 of Vail’s
2007 federal income tax return as “wages, salaries, tips, etc.” — as Vail’s “income” in
calculating the parties’ proportionate shares of Abigail’s college expenses, applying what it
determined to be the ordinary meaning of “income,” i.e., “money, etc. received in a given period
as wages, rent, interest, etc.,” citing Webster’s New World Dictionary 323 (2d Ed.2002) and
Black’s Law Dictionary 766 (7th Ed.1999). The trial court held that “[i]f the parties had
return also lists interest income, dividends, taxable refunds, taxable pension distributions, $32,845 in business losses
and $4,074 in “other losses,” which together results in “total income” of $69,013 as listed on line 22 of Vail’s 2007
federal income tax return.
intended to base the ratio on ‘net income’ or ‘adjusted income[,] they could have used the
appropriate adjective.” Because “they did not,” the trial court properly held that the ordinary
meaning of the term applied.
{¶53} Further, “[a] party claiming a business expense has the burden of providing
suitable documentation to establish the expense.” Ockunzzi v. Ockunzzi, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
86785, 2006-Ohio-5741, ¶ 53, citing Flynn v. Sender, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84406,
2004-Ohio-6283, ¶ 22-23. A trial court is not required to “blindly accept” all of the expenses a
party claims to have deducted on his or her tax returns as ordinary and necessary business
expenses. Id. Although Vail contends the trial court should have deducted her “legitimate”
business expenses in calculating her income for purposes of applying the income ratio, she
produced no documentation or other evidence at the hearing — beyond the line item listed on her
2007 federal income tax return — to explain and substantiate her claimed business expenses.6
Vail’s fourth cross-assignment of error is meritless and overruled.
Prejudgment Interest
{¶54} In his second assignment of error, String challenges the trial court’s decision to
award Vail $4,588 in prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(A). He contends that his alleged
share of Abigail’s college expenses did not become “due and payable” under R.C. 1343.03(A)
until the trial court issued its judgment entry “directing him to pay Vail the specified calculated
amount” because (1) the 1993 agreement and order did not identify when String’s share of
Abigail’s college expenses was due or to whom String was obligated to pay his share of Abigail’s
college expenses, (2) the amount of the claimed obligation was disputed and remained to be
6
Indeed, Vail’s exhibit No. 7, to which she points as evidence of her “total income” of $69,013, includes
only the first page of her 2007 federal income tax return. It does not include Schedule C on which her $32,845 in
claimed business losses would have been itemized.
calculated and (3) the trial court failed to make “specific factual determinations” regarding
“when the claim became due and payable.” String contends that the “trigger date” for any
interest award should have been April 6, 2018, when the amount of his obligation was
established by the trial court.
{¶55} R.C. 1343.03(A) provides that
when money becomes due and payable upon * * * any settlement between the
parties * * * and upon all judgments, decrees, and orders of any judicial tribunal
for the payment of money arising out of * * * a contract or other transaction, the
creditor is entitled to interest at the rate per annum determined pursuant to section
5703.47 of the Revised Code.
The trial court has discretion to determine when money becomes “due and payable” under R.C.
1343.03(A). See, e.g., Norco Equip. Co. v. Simtrex, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95914,
2011-Ohio-3688, ¶ 11; McKay v. McKay, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23702, 2010-Ohio-3348, ¶
37.
{¶56} In this case, String’s obligation to pay certain of Abigail’s college expenses arose
out of the 1993 order that incorporated the parties’ separation agreement. Although the 1993
agreement and order did not specify a date by which String was to pay his share of Abigail’s
college expenses, given the purpose of the obligation, the trial court reasonably determined that
String’s obligation arose — at the latest — when Abigail graduated from college. Accordingly,
the trial court found that String’s obligation to pay his share of Abigail’s college expenses
became “due” on May 31, 2011.7 Once Abigail graduated from college, the full cost of Abigail’s
tuition, room, board, books and laboratory fees would have been known and the specific amount
7
As the trial court explained, because Abigail’s actual college graduation date was unknown, it chose May
31, 2011 as the date String’s obligation became “due” to approximate Abigail’s college graduation date. Although
it was undisputed that Abigail graduated from college in May 2011, there is no information in the record as to which
day she graduated.
of String’s obligation under the 1993 agreement and order, i.e., his proportionate share of those
expenses, could have been readily calculated. The fact that an obligation is disputed or has not
been calculated does not preclude a finding that an obligation is “due and payable” under R.C.
1343.03(A). See, e.g., Royal Elec. Constr. v. Ohio State Univ., 73 Ohio St.3d 110, 117, 652
N.E.2d 687 (1995); Persello v. Allstate Ins. Co., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA 18,
2011-Ohio-3230, ¶ 15. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we cannot say that the trial
court abused its discretion in determining that String’s obligation to pay his share of Abigail’s
college expenses became “due and payable” upon Abigail’s graduation.
{¶57} String’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Attorney Fees and Legal Expenses
{¶58} String’s third assignment of error and Vail’s second and third cross-assignments of
error relate to the trial court’s denial of the parties’ requests for attorney fees and legal expenses.
{¶59} The magistrate declined to award either party their attorney fees and legal
expenses, concluding that “[b]oth sides contributed equally to this litigation” — String, “by
continuing to deny his obligation to pay college expenses * * * resulting in protracted and costly
litigation,” and Vail, “by her failure to calculate the obligation, which was difficult due to the
lack of authenticated evidence.” After considering the parties’ arguments and reviewing the
docket and hearing transcripts, the trial court agreed with the magistrate and ordered that each
party bear the cost of his or her own attorney fees and legal expenses.
{¶60} String contends that the magistrate’s denial of his request for attorney fees was
“based on an erroneous finding of fact negated by the record” and that the trial court, therefore,
abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision on the issue. String disputes that he
“contributed equally” to the litigation costs and delays and asserts that the “protracted litigation
and expense” were attributable to Vail’s bad faith, her “documented,” “sanctionable
misconduct,” her “personal attacks and outbursts” and her failure to produce evidence supporting
her claims. Vail, in turn, contends that she was entitled to a “mandatory attorney fee award”
under R.C. 3109.05(C) and that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order String to
pay her attorney fees because she was the “prevailing party” and obtained a money judgment
against String.
Attorney Fees Under R.C. 3109.05(C)
{¶61} R.C. 3109.05(C) provides:
If any person required to pay child support under an order made under division
(A) of this section on or after April 15, 1985, or modified on or after December 1,
1986, is found in contempt of court for failure to make support payments under
the order, the court that makes the finding, in addition to any other penalty or
remedy imposed, shall assess all court costs arising out of the contempt
proceeding against the person and require the person to pay any reasonable
attorney’s fees of any adverse party, as determined by the court, that arose in
relation to the act of contempt and, on or after July 1, 1992, shall assess interest
on any unpaid amount of child support pursuant to section 3123.17 of the Revised
Code.
{¶62} As explained above, String’s obligation to contribute to the cost of Abigail’s
college education was not “child support,” and the trial court properly refused to hold String in
contempt for his failure to pay his share of Abigail’s college expenses. Accordingly, Vail was
not entitled to recover her attorney fees under R.C. 3109.05(C).
Attorney Fees Under R.C. 3105.73(B)
{¶63} As a general rule, there are “no automatic attorney fees” in domestic relations
cases. Packard v. Mayer-Packard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85189, 2005-Ohio-4392, ¶ 8. Rather,
R.C. 3105.73(B) provides that “[i]n any post-decree motion or proceeding that arises out of an
action for divorce,” a trial court “may award all or part of reasonable attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses to either party if the court finds the award equitable.” In determining
whether such an award is equitable, the trial court “may consider the parties’ income, the conduct
of the parties, and any other relevant factors the court deems appropriate” other than the parties’
assets. R.C. 3105.73(B). Whether to award attorney fees under R.C. 3105.73(B) is within the
sound discretion of the trial court.
{¶64} Under the facts and circumstances here, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision and denying the parties’ requests for their
attorney fees and legal expenses. It is clear from a review of the docket and the hearing
transcripts that both parties were responsible for the voluminous, protracted and, at times,
mean-spirited litigation in this case. The trial court’s decision not to award attorney fees to
either party was not unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. String’s third assignment of
error and Vail’s second and third cross-assignments of error are overruled.
{¶65} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee/cross-appellant recover from appellant/cross-appellee the costs
herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Domestic Relations Division of the
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
___________________________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and
MICHELLE SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR