Carow v. Girton , 2014 Ohio 570 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Carow v. Girton, 2014-Ohio-570.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ATHENS COUNTY
COLLEEN CAROW (fka GIRTON), :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 13CA13
:
vs. :
: DECISION AND JUDGMENT
SAMUEL DAVID GIRTON, : ENTRY
:
Defendant-Appellant. : Released: 02/10/14
_____________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Charles M. Elsea, Stebelton, Aranda & Snider, LPA, Lancaster, Ohio, for
Appellant.
James D. Sillery, Mollica, Gall, Sloan & Sillery Co., L.P.A., Athens, Ohio,
for Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________
McFarland, J.
{¶1} Samuel David Girton appeals from the judgment of the Athens
County Court of Common Pleas finding him in contempt of a prior agreed
entry dated June 11, 2012. On appeal, Appellant contends that 1) the trial
court, in its January 24, 2013, decision on motion on charges in contempt
and judgment entry, erred in its construction of the parties’ agreement as a
matter of law; and 2) the trial court abused its discretion in finding that an
agreement was reached between the parties with respect to extra-curricular
activities. In light of our finding that the trial court abused its discretion in
Athens App. No. 13CA13 2
holding Appellant in contempt of the parties’ prior agreed entry, we sustain
Appellant’s assignments of error and reverse the decision of the trial court.
FACTS
{¶2} The parties were married on June 25, 1994, and both became
employed by Ohio University; Appellant, as an assistant professor, and
Appellee, as an administrator with the college of engineering. The marriage
began to deteriorate several years later and the parties filed for divorce in
early 2008. The divorce was final on October 24, 2008. At the time of their
divorce, the parties shared one minor child, E.G., age three at the time and
approximately age eight during the proceedings below. As part of the
divorce, the trial court issued a shared parenting order with respect to the
parties’ minor son.
{¶3} Several post decree motions have ensued since that time, leading
up to the present contempt motion currently being appealed. A review of the
record reveals that Appellee filed a motion in the Domestic Relations
Division of the Athens County Court of Common Pleas on October 4, 2011,
seeking orders on a multitude of issues, including “an order spelling out the
terms and conditions of the scheduling and attendance of [E.G.’s] functions
and extracurricular activities and summer camps[.]” An agreed entry was
Athens App. No. 13CA13 3
subsequently filed on June 11, 2012, purporting to address and resolve all of
the issues contained in the October 4, 2011, motion.
{¶4} The agreed entry provided as follows in paragraph 2 with
respect to E.G.’s extracurricular activities, which is pertinent on appeal:
“Both parties may attend all of [E.G.’s] functions and
extracurricular activities.
The parties commit to working toward agreement on E.G.’s
extracurricular activities included but not limited to art, sports,
music and education. The parties shall equally share the costs
of all school fees and school related fees, tutoring and those
extracurricular activities upon which they agree that [E.G.] will
participate.
If there is not agreement, once per year each parent may have
[E.G.] participate in an extracurricular activity including, but
not limited to, art, sports, music and education for which that
parent shall pay the sole cost. Prior to enrolling [E.G.] in an
extracurricular activity, the enrolling parent will advise the
other parent, in writing, so that schedules can be coordinated.
Both parents will support [E.G.’s] participation and attendance
including transporting [E.G.] during his or her custodial time.
Athens App. No. 13CA13 4
Each parent must advise the other, in writing, of the full
schedule of such activity.”
It is the alleged violation of this provision of the agreed entry which led
Appellee to file charges in contempt and a motion to show cause on October
12, 2012.
{¶5} Appellee’s contempt motion was a two branch motion, the first
branch of which is at issue herein. This branch argued that Appellant was in
contempt of the prior agreed entry by virtue of his refusal to allow E.G. to
participate in soccer and cub scouts during his custodial time unless
Appellee agreed, in writing, that she would not be attending those activities.
A show cause hearing was held on November 16, 2012, at which both
parties testified as to their interpretation of the agreed entry.
{¶6} The trial court issued a decision on motion on charges of
contempt and judgment entry on January 24, 2013, finding Appellant in
contempt of the agreed entry with respect to [E.G.’s] participation in
extracurricular activities. Thereafter, on February 20, 2013, a disposition
hearing was held. The trial court sentenced Appellant to ninety days in jail
and ordered Appellant to pay Appellee’s attorney fees. The trial court
further suspended Appellant’s jail sentence, providing Appellant purged his
contempt, which included refraining from any further contemptuous activity
Athens App. No. 13CA13 5
during the next year. It is from this contempt finding and final disposition
which Appellant now brings his timely appeal, assigning the following
errors for our review.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
I. THE TRIAL COURT, IN ITS JANUARY 24, 2013 DECISION
ON MOTION ON CHARGES IN CONTEMPT AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY, ERRED IN ITS CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT OF JUNE 11, 2012 AS A
MATTER OF LAW.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING
THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED BETWEEN THE
PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO EXTRA-CURRICULAR
ACTIVITIES. ”
LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶7} Because the analysis of Appellant’s assignments of error is
interconnected, we address them together. These assignments of error
essentially argue that the trial court abused its discretion in interpreting the
language of the parties’ agreed entry with respect to their son’s participation
in extracurricular activities, and as such, erred in finding Appellant in
contempt of the prior order. Appellant seeks a determination that the
language of the agreed entry is unambiguous and that his actions do not
constitute contempt.
{¶8} Initially we note that “contempt of court” is the disobedience or
disregard of a court order or a command of judicial authority. E.g., Daniels
Athens App. No. 13CA13 6
v. Adkins, 4th Dist. Ross No. 93CA1988, 1994 WL 268263 (June 3, 1994);
Johnson v. Morris, 4th Dist. Ross No. 93CA1969, 1993 WL 524976 (Dec.
13, 1993). It involves conduct that engenders disrespect for the
administration of justice or “which tends to embarrass, impede or obstruct a
court in the performance of its functions.” Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd.
of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 15, 520 N.E.2d 1362 (1988); quoting
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 271 N.E.2d 815, paragraph
one of the syllabus (1971). “[T]he law of contempt is intended to uphold
and ensure the effective administration of justice[,]” and “to secure the
dignity of the court and to affirm the supremacy of law.” Cramer v. Petrie,
70 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 637 N.E.2d 882 (1994). A court “possesses both
inherent and statutory authority to compel compliance with its lawfully
issued orders.” State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249, 252, 648
N.E.2d 1355 (1995); citing Cramer at 133-134 and R.C. 2705.02(A).
{¶9} A distinction exists between criminal and civil contempt. For
instance, criminal contempt proceedings “vindicate the authority of the legal
system and punish the party who offends the court.” McDonald v.
McDonald, 4th Dist. Highland No. 12CA1, 2013-Ohio-470, ¶ 16; citing
Scherer v. Scherer, 72 Ohio App.3d 211, 214, 594 N.E.2d 150 (3rd Dist.
1991); In re Skinner, 4th Dist. Adams No. 93CA547, 1994 WL 93149 (Mar.
Athens App. No. 13CA13 7
23, 1994). The sanction imposed for criminal contempt serves as a
punishment for the completed act of disobedience. E.g., Brown v. Executive
200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250, 254, 416 N.E.2d 610 (1980).
{¶10} Civil contempt, which is at issue herein, exists when a party
fails to do something ordered by a court for the benefit of an opposing party.
McDonald, supra, at ¶ 17; citing Pedone v. Pedone, 11 Ohio App.3d 164,
165, 463 N.E.2d 656 (8th Dist. 1983); Beach v. Beach, 99 Ohio App. 428,
431, 134 N.E.2d 162 (2nd Dist. 1955). The punishment is remedial, or
coercive, in civil contempt. State ex rel. Henneke v. Davis, 66 Ohio St.3d
119, 120, 609 N.E.2d 544 (1993). Stated another way, civil contempt is
intended to enforce compliance with a court's orders.
{¶11} The party seeking to enforce a court order must establish, by
clear and convincing evidence, both the existence of a court order as well as
the nonmoving party's noncompliance with the terms of the court order. Wolf
v. Wolf, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090587, 2010-Ohio-2762, ¶ 4; Morford v.
Morford, 85 Ohio App.3d 50, 55, 619 N.E.2d 71 (4th Dist.1993). The
burden then shifts to the defendant to establish any defense. Morford.
“ ‘Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of
proof which is more than a “preponderance of the evidence,”
but not to the extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a
Athens App. No. 13CA13 8
reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in
the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the
facts sought to be established.’ ” McDonald v. McDonald at ¶
18; quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d
118, paragraph three of the syllabus (1954).
{¶12} As such, even when the plaintiff bears the burden of proof by
“clear and convincing” evidence, this Court’s standard of review is
deferential in that the presence of “some competent, credible evidence”
requires us to affirm the trial court's judgment. State v. Miller, 4th Dist. Ross
No. 11CA3217, 2012-Ohio-1901, ¶ 24; citing State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio
St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990). Further, “[t]his court reviews a finding
of civil contempt under the abuse of discretion standard.” Lindsey v.
Lindsey, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 06CA3113, 2007-Ohio-3803, ¶ 18; citing State
ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 75, 573 N.E.2d 62 (1991);
State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 11, 417 N.E.2d 1249(1981); McCleese v. Clemons, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 05CA3016, 2006-Ohio-
3011, ¶ 15.
{¶13} As indicated above, Appellant contends that the language of
the agreed entry at issue is unambiguous. Appellant further argues that the
agreed entry only required him to support the child in and transport the child
Athens App. No. 13CA13 9
to extracurricular activities of which the parties agreed the child would
participate. Appellant contends there was no agreement reached with
respect to the child’s participation in soccer and cub scouts and, as such, he
was not in violation of the order for refusing to take the child to these
activities during his custodial time.
{¶14} Appellee contends, on the other hand, that the fact the child
had participated in these two activities for two years and would continue was
“inherent” in the agreed entry and that Appellant’s refusal to cooperate
unless Appellee agreed, in writing, not to attend these activities during
Appellant’s custodial time is a violation of the terms of the agreement,
which specifically provides that both parents may attend all of E.G.’s
functions and extracurricular activities. The trial court agreed with
Appellee’s interpretation of the agreement, finding Appellant’s actions to be
not only contemptuous and “contra to the letter and spirit of the parties’
agreement,” but also “selfish and not supportive of [E.G.’s] best interests.”
{¶15} “Where both parties agree on the terms of the Agreed entry in a
divorce action, we find that the Agreed Entry is essentially a contract
between the parties.” Oberst v. Oberst, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 08-CA-34, ¶
59; citing Klug v. Klug, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 19369, 2003-Ohio-3042,
¶ 13; citing In Re Adams, 45 Ohio St.3d 219, 220, 543 N.E.2d 797 (1989).
Athens App. No. 13CA13 10
As such, contract rules of interpretation apply. Id. As further noted in
Oberst at ¶ 60:
“A general rule of contract interpretation is that ‘if language in
the contract is ambiguous, the court should construe the
language against the drafting party.’ Id. citing Central Realty
Co. v. Clutter (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 411, 413, 406 N.E.2d 515.
‘However, when interpreting a contract, the court must first
examine the plain language of the contract for evidence of the
parties' intent.’ Id. citing Gottlieb & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Ins.
Co. (April 21, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64559. If the
contract language is ambiguous, then the court should consider
extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent and
ambiguities should be construed against the drafter.”
{¶16} Here, as the trial court indicated in its judgment entry, the
agreed entry was “was developed by the parties, a counselor, and possibly
their attorneys.” Thus, the parties are on even ground with respect to the
drafting of the agreement. Further, after reviewing the pertinent provisions
of the agreed entry, we find the language to be straightforward,
unambiguous, and in accordance with Appellant’s interpretation. Thus,
Athens App. No. 13CA13 11
there is no need to consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’
intent.
{¶17} While the plain language of paragraph two of the agreed entry,
as set forth above, does provide that both parents may attend all of E.G.’s
extracurricular activities, it also provides that the parties must agree on those
extracurricular activities. The specific language of the entry states that the
parties “commit to working toward agreement” on extracurricular activities,
not that there had already been an agreement reached with respect to certain
activities such as soccer and cub scouts. In fact, the trial court’s finding that
“[s]eemingly, the parties agreed on a list of extracurricular activities * * *”
was not supported by competent, credible evidence and, as such, was in
error. This fact is confirmed by Appellee’s own testimony during the
contempt hearing. Appellee testified as follows on cross examination:
“Q. Ms. Carow, did Mr. Girton make offers to you regarding
the soccer, the Boy Scouts? Did he make offers to you
for a way that he would be comfortable with those events
happening?
A. Yes.
Athens App. No. 13CA13 12
Q. And he offered that if you would agree not to attend that
he would be comfortable with them and he would take
him?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not accept that offer.
A. No. I feel that that’s inappropriate.
Q. So you were unable to reach an agreement. He made an
offer, you declined it. So there was no agreement.
Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You understand that the court order from June 11th says
that if you’re not able to reach an agreement then once
per calendar year each parent may choose an activity?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you chose piano?
A. Mm-hmm.”
{¶18} This fact the parties never reached agreement on a “list” of
activities is further confirmed by a motion for a nunc pro tunc entry filed by
Appellee herself after issuance of the court’s final decision. In that motion,
Appellee points out that the agreed entry at issue “does not contain a
Athens App. No. 13CA13 13
provision that the parties have a ‘list’ of activities in which [E.G.] can
participate” and clarifies that the agreed entry “only speaks to the parties
working toward agreement.” The trial court, however, did not issue a nunc
pro tunc entry.
{¶19} As set forth above, the record indicates that when agreement
was not reached with respect to the child’s participation in soccer and cub
scouts, Appellee resorted to the provision contained in paragraph two of the
agreed entry which allowed her to choose a single activity for the child to
participate, and that was piano.1 There was no evidence that Appellant
failed or refused to take the child to this activity during his custodial time.
{¶20} This Court is well aware of the fact that the intention of the
agreed entry was likely not to permit Appellant to withhold agreement on a
particular extracurricular activity unless Appellee promised not to attend. In
making his agreement to the activity contingent on Appellee’s promise not
to attend, Appellant has found a way around the language of the agreed entry
without technically violating it. Although we agree with the trial court that
such conduct is contrary to the best interest of the child, unfortunately we
cannot find that it is a technical violation of the prior order of the court. As
1
We take this opportunity to note that while the parties could not jointly agree on soccer or Cub Scouts,
Appellee could have chosen one of these as her sole activity, rather than piano, and Appellant would have
been required, by the terms of the agreed entry, to support the child in that activity and transport him to the
activity during his custodial time regardless of whether Appellee planned to attend or not. At this juncture,
we encourage the parties to work together for the sake of E.G.
Athens App. No. 13CA13 14
such, we must conclude that the trial court erred and abused it discretion in
finding Appellant in contempt. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is
reversed.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Athens App. No. 13CA13 15
Abele, P.J., concurring in judgment only with opinion:
{¶21} It is extremely unfortunate that the genesis of this most recent
controversy between the parties appears to be the appellant's desire to
prevent the appellee, his former spouse and the child's mother, from
attending their child's soccer games at a public park. However, after
perusing the voluminous history of this proceeding, my surprise is,
unfortunately, completely unwarranted. Nevertheless, appellant should be
reminded that plentiful Ohio case authority stands for the proposition that
one parent's actions that impede or deter the other parent's contact with their
child is generally viewed as being against the child's best interest and may
provide reason or justification to modify the amount of parenting time that a
parent may share with the child.
Athens App. No. 13CA13 16
Harsha, J., concurring:
{¶22} I concur in judgment and opinion on the merit issues but write
to address our jurisdiction. I conclude the finding of contempt is a final
appealable order even though the post-judgment motion contained two
independent “branches” and the order on appeal addresses only one of them.
The finding of contempt is a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) as “[A]n
order that affects a substantial right made * * * in a summary application in
an action after judgment;” And it’s appealable by virtue of R.C. 2705.09,
which states, “The judgment and order * * * of contempt may be reviewed
on appeal. * * *.”
{¶23} Accordingly, I do not indulge in the presumption that the trial
court implicitly denied the remaining “branch” by virtue of its failure to rule
upon it. Such a conclusion would be appropriate if the motion had been
ancillary to a pending claim or cause of action that the court disposed of
without addressing the motion. The rule makes sense when applied to a
final judgment granting relief that is adverse to or inconsistent with the relief
sought in the ancillary motion. Here we deal with an independent post-
judgment motion that seeks two separate findings of contempt, i.e. a context
in which the presumption does not logically apply. If this were a post-
judgment motion for modification of both spousal and child support and the
Athens App. No. 13CA13 17
trial court addressed only one in its order, would we be justified in applying
the presumption? I think not.
{¶24} So rather than apply the presumption, I simply conclude that
R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) and R.C. 2705.09 combine to provide for an immediate
appeal of a finding of contempt with one caveat, i.e. the order must also
impose a sanction for the contemptuous conduct. See Purdy v. Purdy, 4th
Dist. No. 12CA3490, 2013-Ohio-280, ¶ 10.
{¶25} Because R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) indicates the post-judgment order
is final, and R.C. 2705.09 declares that orders of contempt are appealable,
Civ.R. 54(B) does not come into play even though one “branch” of the
motion technically remains unresolved. See Painter & Pollis, Ohio
Appellate Practice, § 2:16 (Ed.2013-2014). Thus, I conclude we have
jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.
Athens App. No. 13CA13 18
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE REVERSED and that the
Appellant recover of Appellee costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing
the Athens County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into
execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of
the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Abele, P.J.: Concurs in Judgment Only with Opinion.
Harsha, J: Concurs with Concurring Opinion.
For the Court,
BY: ___________________________________
Matthew W. McFarland, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final
judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from
the date of filing with the clerk.