Court Opinion

ID: 9942334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 20:11:18.968784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:58.380415
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Petroni v. Petroni, 2024-Ohio-615.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                               WARREN COUNTY

 KIMBERLY D. PETRONI,                                :
                                                          CASE NOS. CA2023-01-003
        Appellee and Cross-Appellant,                :              CA2023-01-004

                                                     :          OPINION
     - vs -                                                      2/20/2024
                                                     :

 DAVID F. PETRONI,                                   :

        Appellant and Cross-Appellee.                :

        CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                       DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
                            Case No. 17DR39570

Michelle Maciorowski Law, LLC, and Michelle M. Maciorowski, for appellee and cross-
appellant.

Miller, Westwood & Brush, LLP, and Cynthia L. Westwood, for appellant and cross-
appellee.

        M. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, David F. Petroni ("Father"), appeals a decision of the Warren

County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, finding him in contempt for

nonpayment of support to appellee, Kimberly D. Petroni ("Mother"), and overruling his
                                                                  Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                         CA2023-01-004

motions to modify the amount of his support payments and to hold Mother in contempt

for interfering with his allocated parenting time. Mother cross-appeals, seeking additional

attorney's fees for Father's frivolous conduct in seeking modification of his support

payments.

      {¶ 2} Four children were born issue of the parties' marriage, three of which remain

minors for purposes of this appeal. The parties' Final Judgment Entry and Decree of

Divorce ("the Decree") was filed June 5, 2019. Pursuant to the Decree, Father was

ordered to pay: Tier I spousal support totaling $5,196.16 per month and calculated upon

a base income of $250,000; and Tier II spousal support of 34% of additional annualized

monthly income in excess of $250,000. A Shared Parenting Decree approving their

Shared Parenting Plan ("the SPP") was also journalized on June 5, 2019. Pursuant to

the SPP, Father was ordered to pay Tier I and Tier II child support calculated in the same

manner as Tier I and Tier II spousal support. Tier I child support obligation set at

$2,510.22 per month.

      {¶ 3} Father works in real estate development and operates his own consulting

businesses.   In September 2019, one of Father's major business contracts with a

company known as "PIRHL" was terminated, which Father claims was a significant loss

of income such that $250,000 is no longer an appropriate base income for calculating

support payments.

      {¶ 4} On December 9, 2019, Father filed a motion to modify child support and

spousal support, and on January 28, 2021, Father filed a motion to show cause asserting

that Mother was in contempt for interfering with his parenting time under the SPP. On

February 10, 2021, Mother filed a motion to show cause asserting that Father was in

contempt for failing to pay his child and spousal support obligations for January and

                                             -2-
                                                                   Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                          CA2023-01-004

February 2021. On March 9, 2021, Mother filed another motion to show cause asserting

that Father was in contempt for failing to pay his portion of the children's extra-curricular

activities and reiterating that he was in contempt for his failure to pay child and spousal

support for January and February of 2021. Additionally, Mother sought attorney's fees

in each of her motions.

       {¶ 5} A hearing commenced on August 24, 2020 and was continued in progress

until May 3, 2021 when it was completed. Father testified on his own behalf, and

presented testimony from a vocational assessment expert, and from his personal

accountant. Mother testified on her own behalf.

       {¶ 6} The magistrate issued a decision on November 24, 2021. The magistrate

found that Father earned more than $250,000 annually for 2019 and 2020 and therefore

denied Father's motion to modify child support and spousal support. The magistrate held

Mother in contempt for one instance of restricting Father's access to parenting time and

recommended a three-day suspended jail sentence. Further, the magistrate found Father

in contempt for his failure to pay child and spousal support for January and February 2021

and recommended he be sentenced to five days in jail and that the domestic relations

court consider whether to impose a previously suspended ten-day jail sentence for a prior

contempt finding. Finally, the magistrate held that Father was in contempt for his failure

to pay his share for the children's extracurricular activities and recommended an

additional three-day jail sentence.

       {¶ 7} On August 27, 2021, Father filed another motion for contempt against

Mother, alleging a pattern of denying him parenting time in the summer and for unilaterally

scheduling therapy appointments without consulting him as required by the SPP. A

hearing was held on January 13, 2022, and the magistrate issued a decision on February

                                              -3-
                                                                     Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                            CA2023-01-004

24, 2022 denying Father's motion.

       {¶ 8} Father timely filed objections to both the magistrate's November 24, 2021

decision and February 24, 2022 decision. On December 16, 2022, the trial court issued

a judgment entry affirming both magistrate's decisions.

       {¶ 9} Father now appeals with seven assignments of error, and Mother cross-

appeals with a single assignment of error. We first address Father's assignments of error.

       {¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 1:

       {¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONDUCT A DE NOVO

REVIEW OF THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISIONS WHICH WERE FILED NOVEMBER 24,

2021, AND FEBRUARY 24, 2022.

       {¶ 12} In his first assignment of error, Father claims the trial court failed to perform

an independent review of the objected matters before it pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d),

asserting that the trial court based its judgment merely on the various motions before the

magistrate and the magistrate's decisions on each, and failed to make specific reference

to the transcript or evidence in the record.

       {¶ 13} In ruling on objections to a magistrate's decision, Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) requires

a trial court to independently review the objected matters to ascertain whether the

magistrate properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.

Koeppen v. Swank, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008-09-234, 2009-Ohio-3675, ¶ 26. When

conducting its de novo review, the trial court may not defer to the magistrate because the

magistrate is a subordinate officer of the trial court, not an independent officer performing

a separate function. Leach v. Leach, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-06-092, 2020-Ohio-

1181, ¶ 11. Consequently, the trial court has the ultimate authority and responsibility over

the magistrate's findings and rulings. Mandzak v. Graves, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-

                                               -4-
                                                                  Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                         CA2023-01-004

06-173, 2010-Ohio-595, ¶ 7. On appeal, this court presumes the trial court performed an

independent review of the magistrate's decision unless the appellant affirmatively

demonstrates otherwise. Wiseman v. Wiseman, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2022-03-004,

2022-Ohio-3689, ¶ 23.

       {¶ 14} Contrary to Father's contentions, the trial court's judgment entry on the

objections to the magistrate's decisions of November 24, 2021 and February 24, 2022

states that it was "provided-extensive transcripts and all relevant filings to enable the

undersigned to make a decision." The trial court noted that the proceedings before the

magistrate involved numerous motions for contempt relating to parenting time and the

nonpayment of child support, spousal support, and certain expenses, as well as motions

for the modification of court-ordered support and the payment of attorney fees. The trial

court then detailed the various issues before it on the objections and concluded by stating,

"Having reviewed the various motions before the magistrate and his Decisions on each,

the Court affirms the magistrate's decisions of November 2021 and February 2022 in all

particulars." The trial court's judgment entry reflects it conducted the necessary de novo,

independent review.

       {¶ 15} Father's first assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 16} Assignment of Error No. 2:

              IN ITS DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, THE TRIAL
              COURT ERRED IN FINDING MR. PETRONI IN CONTEMPT
              AS ALLEGED IN MRS. PETRONI'S SHOW CAUSE MOTION
              FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2021, AND BRANCH II OF HER
              SHOW CAUSE MOTION FILED MARCH 9, 2021.

       {¶ 17} In his second assignment of error, Father claims that the trial court abused

its discretion in finding him in contempt for failing to pay January and February 2021

spousal and child support as he demonstrated that he had an inability to pay as ordered.

                                             -5-
                                                                   Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                          CA2023-01-004

In support of this claim, Father argues that the termination of the PIRHL contract was a

substantial change in circumstances, he lost his employment, and had no "W-2" income

from September 2021 until early spring of 2022.

       {¶ 18} "In reviewing a trial court's judgment regarding contempt, an appellate court

will not reverse the finding absent an abuse of discretion." Davis v. Davis, 12th Dist.

Butler No. CA2021-11-139, 2022-Ohio-3179, ¶ 28. "[T]he [support] obligor * * * bears the

burden of alleging and proving his inability to comply with the court's [support] order." Cox

v. Cox, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2016-05-040, 2017-Ohio-1010, ¶ 25.

       {¶ 19} Father was ordered to pay Tier I and II spousal support and Tier I and II

child support. Based upon his income of $250,000, Father was to pay Mother Tier I

monthly spousal support of $5,196.26 and Tier I monthly child support of $2,510.22 for a

total amount of $7,706.48 per month. For January and February 2021, Father only paid

Mother a total of $6,000. The Magistrate found Father in contempt for failing to pay

Mother spousal and child support as ordered and recommended he be sentenced to five

days in jail unless he purged his contempt by paying Mother the sum of $9,412.76 on or

before January 31, 2022.

       {¶ 20} Although Father lost the PIRHL contract income, and his income fluctuated

month to month, Father's business and financial records indicated that he still earned

more than $250,000. Father additionally earned nearly $100,000 from the sale of real

estate in late 2020, albeit with Mother already entitled to half of the net proceeds. Father

did not demonstrate an inability to comply with the court ordered support payments for

January 2021 and February 2021.

       {¶ 21} Father's second assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 22} Assignment of Error No. 3:

                                              -6-
                                                                  Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                         CA2023-01-004

              IN ITS DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, THE TRIAL
              COURT ERRED IN FINDING MR. PETRONI IN CONTEMPT
              FOR FAILING TO PAY FOR EXTRACURRICULAR
              ACTIVITIES AS ALLEGED IN BRANCH I OF MS.
              PETRONI'S SHOW CAUSE MOTION FILED MARCH 9,
              2021.

       {¶ 23} In his third assignment of error, Father argues that he should not be held in

contempt for failing to reimburse Mother for therapy and piano expenses because there

was no evidence that he agreed to the children participating in those activities as provided

by the SPP.

       {¶ 24} The SPP provides, "Regarding payment of extra-curricular activities, the

parents shall both pay towards those activities they agree for the children to attend. If a

parent demonstrates a consistent refusal to agree to extracurricular activities the children

are known to love and excel in, that parent risks losing the designation as a residential

parent of the children."

       {¶ 25} The SPP also provides that, "[t]he costs of uninsured medical, dental,

orthodontic, optical, psychological, or psychiatric expenses * * * shall be divided 69% to

Father and 31% to Mother."

       {¶ 26} Mother presented an exhibit demonstrating that she sought reimbursement

of the children's expenses for therapy and piano via Our Family Wizard. Father did not

reimburse Mother, claiming he did not have the money to do so. Mother therefore moved

to have Father held in contempt for failing to pay his portion of those expenses. Mother's

motion included certain extracurricular expenses she incurred subsequent to her filing of

the contempt motion. The trial court excluded these post-contempt motion expenses in

consideration of Mother's contempt motion.

       {¶ 27} The trial court noted that the SPP did not specify the percentage of

extracurricular expenses each parent should pay. The trial court ordered that the SPP

                                             -7-
                                                                   Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                          CA2023-01-004

be modified to provide that Father pay 69% and Mother pay 31% of the children's

extracurricular expenses. Because Father had reimbursed Mother nothing toward those

expenses, the trial court found Father in contempt and sentenced him to three days in jail

and provided that he could purge himself of contempt by paying Mother, on or before

December 10, 2021, the sum of $1,060.29 (69% of his son's soccer fees) and $358.80

(69% of his son's and daughter's piano fees), for a total payment of $1,419.09.

       {¶ 28} Father mischaracterizes the children's therapy expenses as "extra-

curricular" expenses.          On the contrary, the children's therapy expenses are

"psychological, or psychiatric expenses" subject to the 69%-31% formula established by

the SPP in a provision separate from that relating to extracurricular activity expenses.

Thus, the therapy expenses are not subject to extracurricular activities the parties "agree

for the children to attend."

       {¶ 29} During a hearing on December 7, 2018, Mother's counsel cross-examined

Father and inquired whether he agreed to the children's participation in various activities.

Father testified that he agreed to the children's participation in piano.       Father also

confirmed that he would pay 69% of the cost of the children's participation in those

activities that he agreed to, which included piano. Specifically, the trial court stated that

the percentage of income split was 69%-31% and Father testified that, "I agree to the

proportion discussion the judge just explained * * *."

       {¶ 30} Although the SPP does not provide proportionate responsibility of the

parties for the piano expenses, Father agreed in open court and under oath to pay 69%

of those expenses. To address this omission from the SPP, the trial court sua sponte

ordered that extracurricular expenses be subject to the same 69%-31% allocation as

other expenses. Furthermore, the SPP, although lacking a percentage allocation for the

                                              -8-
                                                                    Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                           CA2023-01-004

children's extracurricular activities, unequivocally provided that the parties "shall both pay

towards those activities" and Father reimbursed Mother nothing.

         {¶ 31} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Father in contempt for

failing to reimburse Mother for expenses incurred by her for the children's therapy and

piano.

         {¶ 32} Father's third assignment of error is overruled.

         {¶ 33} Assignment of Error No. 4:

                IN ITS DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, THE TRIAL
                COURT ERRED IN FINDING MR. PETRONI MAY BE
                SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF A SUSPENDED JAIL
                SENTENCE FOR A PRIOR FINDING OF CONTEMPT
                AFTER THE CONTEMPT HAD BEEN PURGED

         {¶ 34} In his fourth assignment of error, Father claims he may not be subjected to

a previously suspended ten-day jail sentence for a January 8, 2020 finding of contempt

because the magistrate already determined that previous finding of contempt had been

purged pursuant to a magistrate's decision of June 9, 2020.

         {¶ 35} The magistrate's November 24, 2021 decision only recommended that the

trial court consider whether to impose the previously suspended ten-day jail sentence.

The magistrate's decision did not include a recommendation that Father be ordered to

serve the suspended sentence. The trial court's December 16, 2022 judgment entry

affirms the magistrate's decisions "in all particulars." But, the trial court did not order

father to serve the previously suspended ten-day jail sentence. Absent imposition of a

sentence there is no final appealable order. See City of Middleburg Hts. v. Elsing, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104116, 2016-Ohio-7051, ¶ 13.

         {¶ 36} Nonetheless, as Father asserts, in the magistrate's decision of June 9,

2020, the magistrate found that Father had purged the January 8, 2020 contempt finding.

                                               -9-
                                                                   Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                          CA2023-01-004

"A key aspect of civil contempt * * * is the opportunity for the contemnor to purge [himself]

of the contempt sanction, and the discontinuation of the sanction once compliance is

achieved." Mackowiak v. Mackowiak, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2010-04-009, 2011-Ohio-

3013, ¶ 40. "When a party substantially complies with the order, the reason for the

contempt sanction no longer exists and execution of sentence is not appropriate." State

ex rel. Sutich v. Segedi, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94309, 2010-Ohio-5360, ¶ 6 (finding the

trial court abused its discretion in executing sentence on a contempt order after it had

been purged). The magistrate's decision of November 24, 2021 and the judgment entry

of December 16, 2022 approving the magistrate's decision reflect that Father remains

subject to a suspended ten-day jail sentence for a purged contempt. This is error.

       {¶ 37} Accordingly, Father's fourth assignment of error is sustained and, pursuant

to App.R. 12(B), we find, as a matter of law, that Father is no longer subject to the

suspended ten-day jail sentence imposed as a sanction on the 2020 finding of contempt

which Father subsequently purged.

       {¶ 38} Assignment of Error No. 5:

              IN ITS DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, THE TRIAL
              COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO MODIFY MR. PETRONI' S
              SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS.

       {¶ 39} In his fifth assignment of error, Father argues that the court erred in failing

to modify his spousal and child support orders.

       {¶ 40} Trial courts are given broad discretion in determining whether to modify

spousal support or child support orders. Therefore, an appellate court will not overturn a

trial court's decision regarding spousal support or child support absent an abuse of

discretion.   Cox, 2017-Ohio-1010, ¶ 9; McNeal v. Mahon, 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2015-11-094, 2016-Ohio-5373, ¶ 36.

                                             - 10 -
                                                                 Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                        CA2023-01-004

      {¶ 41} On December 9, 2019, Father filed a motion to modify his Tier I spousal

support and child support because it was based upon his income with the PIRHL contract.

Due to the termination of the PIHRL contract in September 2019, Father claims his

income had substantially decreased. The trial court denied Father's motion, finding that

his 2019 income was $261,832.10, and thus still more than the annual $250,000 Tier I

support baseline. The evidence further reflected that Father continued to earn around

$250,000 in 2020. Furthermore, Father had historically experienced substantial annual

income fluctuations during the marriage. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to modify Father's support orders.

      {¶ 42} Father's fifth assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶ 43} Assignment of Error No. 6:

             IN ITS DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, THE TRIAL
             COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE
             REGARDING MR. PETRONI'S INCOME.

      {¶ 44} In his sixth assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court erred in

failing to permit him to offer evidence that he had obtained new employment earning a

reduced income of $144,000 per year.

      {¶ 45} "The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound

discretion of the trial court." State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173(1987), paragraph two of

the syllabus. An appellate court will not disturb evidentiary rulings absent an abuse of

discretion that produced a material prejudice to the aggrieved party. State v. Maurer, 15

Ohio St.3d 239, 265 (1984).

      {¶ 46} Father filed his motion to modify his Tier I spousal support and child support

on December 9, 2019. The hearing commenced on August 24, 2020 and was continued

in progress until May 3, 2021. It was in the midst of the May 3, 2021 hearing that Father

                                              - 11 -
                                                                    Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                           CA2023-01-004

sought to introduce evidence of his income based upon new employment. Father had

only recently before the May 3, 2021 hearing advised Mother's counsel of his new

employment. Mother's counsel advised the court that due to the recency of the disclosure

he had not been able to conduct discovery on the issue. The magistrate instructed the

parties that, "we will deal with [Father's] current income in the future."

       {¶ 47} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hear evidence of

Father's new employment as it was only disclosed shortly before the last day of a multi-

year hearing, and the hearing was concerned with Father's earnings in 2019 and 2020

and his failure to make support payments in January and February of 2021.

       {¶ 48} Father's sixth assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 49} Assignment of Error No. 7:

              IN ITS DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2022, THE TRIAL
              COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND MS. PETRONI IN
              CONTEMPT FOR DENYING MR. PETRONI PARENTING
              TIME AND FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW THE SHARED
              PARENTING PLAN.

       {¶ 50} In his seventh assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court erred

by failing to find Mother in contempt for denying him parenting time and failing to follow

the shared parenting plan.

       {¶ 51} On August 27, 2021, Father filed a motion seeking to have Mother found in

contempt for denying him the parenting time to which he was entitled pursuant to the

SPP. Pursuant to the SPP, summer parenting time is allocated as follows:

              Summer Parenting Time; Vacation. * * * The remaining weeks
              of the summer shall be divided evenly, with Father having
              Monday and Tuesday overnight parenting time, Mother
              having Wednesday and Thursday overnight parenting time,
              and the parties alternating Friday through Monday morning
              parenting time. Pick up and drop off shall be at a mutually
              agreed upon time. If the parties are unable to agree the pick
              up and drop off time shall be at 9:00 a.m. on each respective

                                              - 12 -
                                                                  Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                         CA2023-01-004

              day.

       {¶ 52} The SPP further provides that "Mother shall be responsible for scheduling

routine appointments and providing notice of those appointments as soon as they are

made. Mother shall not schedule an appointment during Father's parenting time without

consulting him in advance and obtaining his agreement."

       {¶ 53} The problem arose due to their son's and daughter's therapy sessions with

the therapist in Lebanon, Ohio with whom the children had been counselling for

approximately a year and a half. Each child has a separate one-hour therapy session

which are scheduled back-to-back.       The therapy sessions occur on Tuesdays and

typically take place between noon and 3:00 p.m. When Mother first scheduled the

appointments around mid-2020, she did not consult with Father. Rather, Mother posted

the appointment on the My Family Wizard shared calendar and when Father did not

object, Mother assumed he agreed.

       {¶ 54} Problems arose in early to mid-2021. In March 2021, Father's employment

situation changed. When the SPP was adopted, Father was self-employed and had a

flexible employment schedule. Although Father's new employment permitted him to work

from home, it required that he be on this computer from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. In June 2021

Father's residence changed and his home was no longer on Mother's route from her home

to the children's therapist's office. Previously, Mother could pick the children up from

Father's home, take them to therapy and then drop them off at Father's home on her way

home from therapy. It was now "extremely difficult" for Father to take the children to

therapy as it would take 3-4 hours out of his workday. Mother remained adamant that the

children participate in therapy and threatened to withhold Father's parenting time if he did

not get them to therapy.

                                             - 13 -
                                                                  Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                         CA2023-01-004

       {¶ 55} To resolve the issue, Mother proposed that Father drop the children off to

her in the morning or during the lunch hour and she would return them to Father after

therapy. Father proposed that the children attend therapy virtually or change therapists.

Neither party was receptive to the other's proposal.

       {¶ 56} Father claimed that he did not have parenting time on Monday July 12,

2021. Mother disputes this, claiming that he picked their son up from her home at 6 pm

that day and that while their daughter went out to Father's car, she did not go home with

him. Father also claimed he did not receive his parenting time on July 26-27, 2021

because Mother told him he could pick them up after therapy on July 27, 2021.

Specifically, Mother had texted Father and asked if he would be taking their son to therapy

on July 27, 2021. When Father did not respond, Mother advised Father that because he

would not respond, their son would be staying with her. Eventually, Mother advised

Father that if he would drop their son off at her home on the morning of July 27, 2021,

she would take him to therapy and then return him to Father after his therapy session.

Father did not drop their son off at Mother's on July 27, 2021. A similar situation occurred

concerning the August 10, 2021 therapy sessions for both their son and daughter. The

magistrate declined to find Mother in contempt because the evidence was unclear

regarding the days Father claimed to have missed his parenting time, whether Father

attempted to pick the children up to exercise his parenting time on those days, and

because Father refused to work with Mother on a solution to ensure the children would

attend counseling on Tuesdays.

       {¶ 57} A trial court may find a party in contempt when the moving party establishes

by "clear and convincing evidence that a valid court order exists, that the offending party

had knowledge of the order, and that the offending party violated such order." Davis v.

                                             - 14 -
                                                                   Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                          CA2023-01-004

Davis, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-11-139, 2022-Ohio-3179, ¶ 21, citing Hetterick v.

Hetterick, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-02-002, 2013-Ohio-15, ¶ 35.

       {¶ 58} Father claimed he missed parenting time on 8-9 days, including July 12, 26,

and 27, 2021, but was not specific as to other days he claimed to have missed. There

was also evidence that Father did not come to Mother's home to pick the children up for

his parenting time on those days even on the following Wednesday morning.

       {¶ 59} The trial court, apparently finding that Father had failed to meet his burden

of clear and convincing evidence, did not abuse its discretion in declining to find Mother

in contempt for withholding parenting time from Father.

       {¶ 60} Father's seventh assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 61} Assignment of Error No. 1 on Cross-Appeal:

              THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING JUST $5,000 IN
              ATTORNEY FEES TO APPELLEE FOR APPELLANT'S
              CONTEMPTIOUS [sic] AND FRIVILOUS [sic] CONDUCT.

       {¶ 62} Mother cross-appeals with a single assignment of error, arguing that the

trial court erred in ordering Father to only pay $5,000 for her attorney's fees.

       {¶ 63} Mother asserted that she had incurred attorney's fees of $21,249.66 of

which she had paid approximately $11,000. The trial court ordered that father pay $5,000

toward mother's attorney's fees, as a consequence of his being found in contempt, with

a $750 setoff due to a finding of contempt against mother. Mother then sought an order

that Father pay the entire balance of her attorney's fees, amounting to approximately

$17,000. Mother claims that she is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 3105.73 and

2323.51, arguing that Father's motion to modify his support payments was frivolous as

his income had not substantially changed.

       {¶ 64} Mother claims that Father went so far as to hire and present an expert

                                             - 15 -
                                                                   Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                          CA2023-01-004

witness to opine on Father's earning capacity, but failed to provide the expert with his

relevant tax returns disclosing that he was earning more than the expert opined and did

not otherwise tell the expert that he was earning more. Mother asserts she incurred

substantial attorney fees in the discovery and other litigation phases of defending against

father's motion.

       {¶ 65} R.C. 3105.73(B) provides:

              In any post-decree motion or proceeding that arises out of an
              action for divorce, dissolution, legal separation, or annulment
              of marriage or an appeal of that motion or proceeding, the
              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 an award is equitable, the
              court may consider the parties' income, the conduct of the
              parties, and any other relevant factors the court deems
              appropriate, but it may not consider the parties' assets. R.C.
              2323.51 provides a mechanism for a party to seek sanctions
              against a party who has engaged in frivolous conduct in the
              litigation.

       {¶ 66} R.C. 2323.51(B)(1) provides:

              Subject to divisions (B)(2) and (3), (C), and (D) of this section
              and except as otherwise provided in division (E)(2)(b) of
              section 101.15 or division (I)(2)(b) of section 121.22 of the
              Revised Code, at any time not more than thirty days after the
              entry of final judgment in a civil action or appeal, any party
              adversely affected by frivolous conduct may file a motion for
              an award of court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and other
              reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the civil
              action or appeal. The court may assess and make an award
              to any party to the civil action or appeal who was adversely
              affected by frivolous conduct, as provided in division (B)(4) of
              this section.

       {¶ 67} A prerequisite to relief under R.C. 2323.51 is a finding that a party engaged

in frivolous conduct. Ruffian, LLC v. Hayes, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-948, 2011-

Ohio-831, ¶ 42, citing R.C. 2323.51(B)(2)(C). The trial court did not award Mother

attorney's fees because Father engaged in frivolous conduct, but rather "as a result of

                                             - 16 -
                                                                    Warren CA2023-01-003
                                                                           CA2023-01-004

being found in contempt." Mother did not cross-appeal on the basis that the trial court did

not find father engaged in frivolous conduct and has forfeited that issue for this appeal

and R.C. 2323.51 is inapplicable. The trial court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in

not awarding mother all the attorney fees she sought and instead awarding her the sum

of $5,000.

       {¶ 68} Mother's single assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 69} The trial court's judgment is affirmed as modified.

       HENDRICKSON, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

                                            - 17 -