Court Opinion

ID: 9965541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 18:09:05.188933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:10.901274
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Kennard v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-1683.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                      STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                      JUDGES:
TIFFANY KENNARD                               :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                              :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                        Plaintiff-Appellee    :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
                                              :
-vs-                                          :
                                              :       Case No. 2023 CA 00127
JEROME SMITH                                  :
                                              :
                    Defendant-Appellant       :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                          Appeal from the Stark County Court of
                                                  Common Pleas, Case No. 2007JCV00554

JUDGMENT:                                         Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                           May 2, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                            For Defendant-Appellant

BRANDON L. DICKERSON                              D. COLEMAN BOND
Stark County C.S.E.A.                             116 Cleveland Ave. N.W., Ste. 600
Box 21337                                         Suite 600
Canton, OH 44702                                  Canton, OH 44702
[Cite as Kennard v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-1683.]

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 May 8, 2007, appellees Tiffany Kennard and the Stark County

Department of Job and Family Services (“SCDJFS”) filed a paternity complaint against

appellant. Appellant was ordered to pay child support of $50 per month, plus processing

fees, in a judgment entry dated August 13, 2007.

        {¶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.

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

cause. The affidavit attached to the motion made by an agent for the Stark County Child

Support Enforcement Agency states appellant failed to pay child support as ordered by
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00127                                                      3

the court in the amount of $61.20 per month, failed to seek work as ordered, and had a

total arrearage of $6,367.18 through December 31, 2022. 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.

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

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

the total arrearage through May 31, 2023 is $6,328.26, plus a processing fee of $222.92,

for a total of $6,551.18. She stated the original order of support in the case was $50.00

per month, effective on August 10, 2007. Appellant made no direct payments since the

establishment of the order in 2007. 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.

       {¶8}   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 his applications

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.

       {¶9}   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 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.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00127                                                       4

The trial court sentenced appellant to thirty days in prison with an additional thirty days

suspended, and issued a judgment entry on August 30, 2023.

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

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

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

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

                                                 I.

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

error in imposing the jail term against appellant for contempt.

       {¶13} 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 reveals that appellant served

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

rendered moot.

       {¶14} 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.

       {¶15} 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
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00127                                                   5

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).

        {¶16} 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.

        {¶17} 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.

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

sanction on paying arrearage is not future obligation).

        {¶18} 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 that these

orders have been in place since 2007.         While minimal payments were made via

involuntary intercepts of appellant’s pandemic assistance funds, appellant never made

any direct payments on the obligation since the establishment of the order in 2007.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00127                                                     6

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.

       {¶19} 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.

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

be unreasonable. At the hearing, counsel for appellant stated he had applied to jobs 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,
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00127                                                     7

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.

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

       {¶22} 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