Court Opinion

ID: 9965540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 18:09:04.293181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:10.892947
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Ward v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-1682.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                      STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                      JUDGES:
TANISHA WARD                                  :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                              :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                        Plaintiff-Appellee    :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
                                              :
-vs-                                          :
                                              :       Case No. 2023 CA 00128
JEROME SMITH                                  :
                                              :
                    Defendant-Appellant       :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                          Appeal from the Stark County Court of
                                                  Common Pleas, Juvenile Court, Case No.
                                                  JU123968

JUDGMENT:                                         Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                           May 2, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                            For Defendant-Appellant

BRANDEN L. DICKERSON                              D. COLEMAN BOND
Stark County C.S.E.A.                             116 Cleveland Aveneue N.W.
Box 21337                                         Suite 600
Canton, OH 44701                                  Canton, OH 44702
[Cite as Ward v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-1682.]

Gwin, P.J.

        {¶1}    Appellant Jerome Smith appeals the August 30, 2023 judgment entry of the

Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.

                                           Facts & Procedural History

        {¶2}    On September 5, 2002, appellees Tanisha Ward and Stark County

Department of Job and Family Services (‘SCDJFS”) filed a complaint for child support

orders. In a decision dated December 2, 2002, the magistrate ordered appellant to pay

$50.00 per month in child support and seek employment at twenty places per month,

including at least two temporary employment services.

        {¶3}    SCDJFS filed a motion to show cause on October 22, 2010, stating

appellant failed to pay child support. After appellant was appointed counsel, he failed to

appear for the show cause hearing on March 3, 2011. The trial court issued a bench

warrant based upon appellant’s failure to appear.

        {¶4}    Appellant appeared before the trial court on June 1, 2011, after being

arrested pursuant the warrant. Appellant stipulated to the contempt. The trial court set

an imposition hearing for August 4, 2011. Appellant failed to appear for the imposition

hearing, and the trial court issued a bench warrant. Appellant voluntarily turned himself

in on August 16, 2011. The trial court cancelled the warrant and scheduled the imposition

hearing for October 27, 2011. On October 27, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant

to twenty-five days in jail as a contempt sanction. Upon his release from jail, the trial court

ordered appellant to seek employment at twenty-five businesses per month.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00128                                                    3

      {¶5}   The child support order terminated in 2012 due the emancipation of the

child. However, child support arrearage existed, so appellant was ordered to pay $60.00,

plus processing charges, each month on the arrearage.

      {¶6}   On January 11, 2023, appellee SCDJFS filed a motion for order to show

cause. The affidavit attached to the motion made by obligee Tanisha Ward states

appellant failed to pay child support as ordered by the court in the amount of $61.20 per

month and failed to seek work as ordered. The trial court issued a show cause order

setting a hearing for February 21, 2023. The court continued the hearing so appellant

could obtain counsel.

      {¶7}   The magistrate held a trial on the contempt motion on June 27, 2023.

      {¶8}   Penny Pelfrey (“Pelfrey”) is a fiscal supervisor at SCDJFS. Pelfrey testified

the total arrearage through May 31, 2023 was $3,314.64, plus a $265.88 processing fee,

for a total of $3,580.52. She stated the original order of support in the case was $50.00

per month, effective in 2002. The monthly arrears payment was $60.00 per month.

Appellant made payments of $4.75 in July of 2004 and August of 2004. Appellant made

no further direct payments. There were some involuntary intercept payments made in

2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 from unemployment pandemic assistance. Pelfrey testified

to the previous contempt finding in 2011.

      {¶9}   The magistrate found appellant in contempt and sentenced appellant to

sixty days in the Stark County Jail. The following purge conditions were issued: follow

court orders regarding child support payments, make monthly payments for twelve

months, seek work at fifteen places per month, keep a written record of the applications
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00128                                                    4

for review, and apply at a temporary agency. Appellant did not object to the magistrate’s

decision. The magistrate set an imposition hearing for August 30, 2023.

       {¶10} At the imposition hearing on August 30, 2023, counsel for appellant

requested that he be allowed to make small payments on a monthly basis. Counsel also

stated that appellant was looking for work and had been applying for jobs, and was

scheduled to start school in the fall. Counsel requested the court set the matter for a

review hearing to determine if appellant obtained a job, started school, and made monthly

payments. The trial court denied appellant’s request, sentenced appellant to thirty days

in prison with an additional thirty days suspended, and issued a judgment entry on August

30, 2023.

       {¶11} Appellant appeals the August 30, 2023 judgment entry of the Stark County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and assigns the following as error:

       {¶12} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT IMPOSED

THE THIRTY (30) DAY JAIL TERM AGAINST APPELLANT FOR THE CONTEMPT.”

                                                I.

       {¶13} In appellant’s assignment of error, he contends the trial court committed

error in imposing the jail term against him for contempt.

       {¶14} An appeal from a finding of contempt becomes moot when an offender

either purges himself of the contempt or serves the sentence. Dotts v. Schaefer, 5th Dist.

Tuscarawas No. 2014 AP 06 0022, 2015-Ohio-782; Oyler v. Lancaster, 5th Dist. Stark

No. 2019CA00130, 2020-Ohio-758. In this case, the record demonstrates that appellant

served his thirty-day jail sentence. Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error has been

rendered moot.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00128                                                       5

        {¶15} Alternatively, even if appellant’s assignment of error was not moot, we find

the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The parties agree the contempt in this matter

is a civil contempt because the contempt was remedial and allowed appellant an

opportunity to purge the jail sentence. Gordon v. Gordon, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 23 CAF

08 00047, 2023-Ohio-4780.

        {¶16} An appellate court’s standard of review of a trial court’s contempt finding is

abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 573 N.E.2d 62

(1991). In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court’s decision

was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or

judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

        {¶17} Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion because the purge

condition of monthly payments was unreasonable and because appellant did not have

the means to make monthly payments due to not being employed. A trial court abuses

its discretion when it orders conditions for purging that are unreasonable or impossible

for the contemnor to meet. Protz v. Protz, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2009CA00270, 2010-Ohio-

2502.

        {¶18} As to appellant’s first argument regarding monthly payments, this Court has

previously held that purge conditions that require a contemnor to pay an arrearage

pursuant to a payment schedule is proper and not an abuse of discretion. Mohler v.

Mohler, 5th Dist. Holmes No. 20CA0008, 2021-Ohio-175 (purge condition to make $400

monthly payments not an abuse of discretion); see also Vaughn v. Vaughn, 12th Dist.

Warren No. CA2021-08-078, 2022-Ohio-1805 (trial court did not abuse discretion by

requiring appellant to make steady payments on child support arrearage); Leuvoy v.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00128                                                     6

Leuvoy, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-1378, 2001 WL 710123 (conditioning contempt

sanction on paying arrearage is not future obligation).

       {¶19} Reviewing the monthly payment purge condition under an abuse of

discretion standard, we cannot find the monthly payment purge condition to be

unreasonable, considering the amount of the arrearages and considering the fact that

these orders have been in place since 2002. While minimal payments were made via

involuntary intercepts of appellant’s pandemic assistance funds, appellant last made

minimal voluntary payments in 2004. Appellant offered to make “small” payments at the

imposition hearing, but had not made any payments as required by the purge conditions

issued by the magistrate.

       {¶20} With regards to appellant’s argument about lacking the means to make the

monthly payments, “generally, impossibility of performance is a valid defense against a

contempt charge.” Ruben v. Ruben, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-717, 2013-Ohio-3924.

The “contemnor bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence at the contempt

hearing to establish that the trial court’s purge conditions are unreasonable or impossible

for him to satisfy.” Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509, 2012-Ohio-4783, 979 N.E.2d

297.   A contemnor “must take all reasonable steps within [his or] her power to comply

with the court’s order and, when raising the defense of impossibility, must show

categorically and in detail why [he or] she is unable to comply with the court’s order.”

Lahoud v. Tri-Monex, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96118, 2011-Ohio-4120.                 A

contemnor’s “unsubstantiated claims of financial difficulties do not establish an

impossibility defense to a contempt charge.” Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509, 2012-

Ohio-4783, 979 N.E.2d 297.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00128                                                      7

       {¶21} We find appellant’s unemployment does not render the purge conditions

unreasonable. At the hearing, counsel for appellant stated he had applied for a job at a

warehouse and “hoped” to get a job with Shearer’s. Appellant presented no testimony or

evidence regarding his inability to comply with the support orders. We find appellant failed

to meet his burden to show in detail why he could not obtain employment and comply with

the court’s order. He did not provide any evidence that he sought work at a minimum of

fifteen places per month or that he kept a written record of his applications for review by

the court as required by the magistrate as a purge condition. Additionally, he did not

provide any proof that he applied at a temp agency as required by the magistrate’s purge

conditions. Appellant’s unsubstantiated claims of financial difficulties do not establish an

impossibility defense to the contempt charge.

       {¶1}   Based on the foregoing, appellant’s assignment of error is overruled. The

August 30, 2023 judgment entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile

Division, is affirmed.

By Gwin, P.J.,

Baldwin, J., and

King, J., concur