[Cite as Edminister v. Edminister, 2011-Ohio-1899.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO
MARY E. EDMINISTER, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 25428 - vs - :
MICHAEL E. EDMINISTER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. DR 2006 07 2257.
Judgment: Modified and affirmed as modified.
David H. Ferguson, 57 South Broadway Street, 3rd Floor, Akron, OH 44308 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Terence E. Scanlon, 101 Clemson Court, Elyria, OH 44035 (For Defendant-Appellant).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., Eleventh Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
{¶1} Appellant, Michael E. Edminister, appeals from the judgment of the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, holding him in
indirect civil contempt for failing to comply with various orders set forth in the parties’
divorce judgment; he also appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay attorney
fees accrued by appellee, Mary E. Edminister, in the course of prosecuting the
underlying contempt action. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we modify the
trial court’s judgment and affirm the judgment as modified. {¶2} On November 17, 2006, the parties were divorced by final decree of the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. On April 18,
2008, appellee filed a post-decree motion seeking an order finding appellant in
contempt for failing to meet various obligations under the final decree; in particular,
appellee alleged since the order was journalized, appellant had failed to timely pay
spousal support; failed to pay debts; failed to pay tax obligations; and failed to provide
proof of life insurance. Appellee also requested appellant be required to pay all future
spousal support through the Child Support Enforcement Agency. Appellee further
sought an order compelling appellant to remove all tax liens against her residence.
And, finally, appellee sought an order requiring appellant to pay all attorney fees and
costs related to the litigation.
{¶3} Several hearings were held between April 2008 and early 2010, but the
motion remained pending. On March 3, 2010, the trial court set a final hearing date of
April 22, 2010, to resolve the matter. Six days before the hearing, appellant moved the
trial court for a continuance. Appellant failed to appear at the hearing and, based upon
the length of time the matter had remained pending, the trial court overruled appellant’s
motion for continuance from the bench.
{¶4} On April 29, 2010, based upon the testimony and evidence introduced at
the hearing, the trial court found appellant in “willful contempt of the Judgment Entry
filed *** on November 17, 2006.” The court accordingly ordered appellant to serve 10
days in the Summit County Jail unless he “purge[d] himself of said contempt by
removing the tax liens from [appellee’s] residence, providing proof of the required life
insurance policy, reimbursing [appellee] for the portion of the $12,176 she already paid
2 and then assuming the payment plan with IRS, paying legal fees in sum of $4,070 to
Attorney David H. Ferguson and making arrangements for payment of the legal fees
owed to Buckingham Doolittle and Burroughs. [Appellant] shall have 90 days from the
date of filing this Judgment to complete the purge requirements.”
{¶5} Appellant appeals the above judgment and assigns three errors for our
review.1
{¶6} Appellant’s first assignment of error reads:
{¶7} “The trial court’s finding of indirect contempt violates due process under
the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions because appellant’s counsel never appeared on the
record to explain his absence and never had access to the disputed attorney fee bills
prior to the hearing.”
{¶8} Contempt is generally understood as a disregard for judicial authority.
See, e.g., Lough v. Lough (Nov. 5, 1999), 5th Dist. No. 98CA00120, 1999 Ohio App.
LEXIS 5272, *26. “Contempt is either direct or indirect, depending on where it
happens.” Forrer v. Buckeye Speedway Inc., 9th Dist. No. 07C0027, 2008-Ohio-4770,
at ¶14. Direct contempt involves disruptive or defiant conduct that is committed in the
presence of the court, or sufficiently near, such that the administration of justice is
disrupted. Harvey v. Harvey, 9th Dist. Nos. 09CA0052 & 09CA0054, 2010-Ohio-4170,
at ¶4. Indirect contempt, alternatively, occurs outside the court’s presence. See
Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist. Council 51 (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 197, 202.
1. As a peremptory note, this court has held a contempt order is final and appealable where the trial court makes both a finding of contempt and contemporaneously imposes an express penalty or sanction. See, e.g., Noll v. Noll, 9th Dist. Nos. 01CA007932 and 01CA007976, 2002-Ohio-4154, at ¶13. In this case the trial court found appellant in contempt and ordered him to serve 10 days in jail if he failed to purge within 90 days. As the order found appellant in contempt and imposed a specific, self-executing sanction, each requirement has been met. Id.; see, also, Garrison v. Garrison (June 27, 1994), 9th Dist. No. 16242, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 2917, *5-*6. The matter is therefore properly before us for consideration.
3 {¶9} Moreover, contempt proceedings may be either criminal or civil in nature.
Criminal and civil contempt serve different purposes in the judicial system and are
governed by different rules. Lough, supra, at *27. Civil contempt is pursued for the
benefit of a complainant and is therefore remedial in nature. In re Purola (1991), 73
Ohio App.3d 306, 311. Alternatively, criminal contempt is usually characterized by
unconditional fines or prison sentences. Id. One charged and found guilty of civil
contempt must be allowed to purge him/herself of the contempt by showing compliance
with the court’s order he/she is charged with violating. Id. at 312. In the case of
criminal contempt, however, there is no requirement that the individual charged be
given the opportunity to purge the contempt.
{¶10} It is well-established that an alleged contemnor must be afforded due
process. See, e.g., Courtney v. Courtney (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 329, 332. “The
essence of due process is the requirement that ‘a person in jeopardy of serious loss (be
given) notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.’” Mathews v. Eldridge
(1976), 424 U.S. 319, 348, quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Commt. v. McGrath
(1951), 341 U.S. 123, 171-172 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Put differently, “*** due
process requires that the alleged contemnor have the right to notice of the charges
against him or her, a reasonable opportunity to defend against or explain such charges,
representation by counsel, and the opportunity to testify and to call other witnesses,
either by way of defense or explanation.” State ex rel. Miller v. Waller, 10th Dist. No.
04AP574, 2004-Ohio-6612, at ¶7. It is axiomatic, however, that due process is not
violated “*** if notice and an opportunity to be heard are given.” Thrower v. Akron, 9th
Dist. No. 21153, 2003-Ohio-1307, at ¶26.
4 {¶11} Before addressing the specific merits of appellant’s argument, it is
necessary to point out that the case was heard over the course of three separate days.
Although a transcript of the third and final day of hearings appears in the record,
appellant failed to have the first two days of hearings transcribed. As the court stated in
Knapp v. Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199:
{¶12} “The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the
appellant. This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of showing
error by reference to matters in the record. *** When portions of the transcript
necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing
court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no
choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”
{¶13} Because we have no ability to review the substance of the testimony or
issues addressed during the first two days of hearings, any argument challenging the
actual merits of the trial court’s contempt ruling is waived.
{¶14} With this in mind, we turn to appellant’s initial argument under his first
assignment of error. Appellant claims he was denied due process because he was
denied his right to counsel. Appellant is wrong.
{¶15} Appellant, an attorney by trade, was proceeding pro se and there is no
indication he wished to enlist the services of independent counsel. Although appellant
ostensibly sent Attorney Brown to meet with the trial judge before the hearing, nothing
indicates Attorney Brown intended to appear on appellant’s behalf, and, even if he had
such intention, there is nothing in the record indicating the court prevented Attorney
Brown from testifying or making a formal appearance.
5 {¶16} We recognize that there is authority to support the proposition that an
indigent defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel in contempt proceedings. See,
e.g., Burton v. Hootman, 5th Dist. No. 06-COA-016, 2007-Ohio-521, at ¶32. In this
case, however, there is nothing in the record indicating appellant was either indigent or,
more importantly, prevented from obtaining counsel. The record is clear that appellant,
as a pro se litigant, had notice of the proceedings, but simply failed to appear without
explanation.
{¶17} Appellant next contends he was denied due process because the trial
court failed to make a record of its conversation with Attorney Brown. Contrary to
appellant’s suggestion, the fact that the court did not engage its court reporter to make a
record of the discussion it had with Attorney Brown in its chambers does not imply
appellant was deprived of his rights. There is no indication Attorney Brown desired to
be placed on record in appellant’s stead. Thus, there is nothing in the record to suggest
the court prevented appellant from attending the hearing or precluded him from being
represented at the proceedings. Appellant’s argument lacks merit.
{¶18} Next, appellant cites Faulkner v. Pegram, 5th Dist. No. 2010CA00022,
2010-Ohio-6614 for the proposition that due process is violated when a contemnor fails
to appear at a contempt hearing and a court issues an order imposing a term of
incarceration. Faulkner, however, is distinguishable.
{¶19} In Faulkner, the defendant was charged with criminal contempt. The court
observed that many of the constitutional safeguards required in criminal trials are also
present in criminal contempt proceedings. Id. at ¶15. Such safeguards include “*** the
right of the accused to be advised of the charges against him, to have a reasonable
6 opportunity to meet the charges by way of explanation or defense, and the opportunity
to call other witnesses on his behalf.” Id. Despite the defendant’s absence, the court
found him in criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in jail “without further
hearing.” Id. at ¶16. The Fifth Appellate District determined the imposition of the
criminal sentence in the defendant’s absence violated due process and therefore
required a reversal of the court’s judgment. Id.
{¶20} Here, appellant was found to be in indirect civil contempt and given an
opportunity to purge the order within 90 days. Because the order was civil in nature and
the jail time was conditional, the analysis in Faulkner does not apply to this case.
{¶21} Finally, appellant contends, by proceeding with the hearing in his absence,
the trial court violated Summit County Domestic Relations Loc.R. 13.04(A). That rule
states, in pertinent part: “The alleged contemnor must be present at the hearing in
order to proceed with contempt charges.” Because the court proceeded with the
hearing in his absence, appellant contends his due process rights were violated. We
again disagree.
{¶22} The record demonstrates that hearings on appellee’s show cause motion
were held over the course of three days. Appellant was present for the first two days.
Although he was absent on the third day of hearings, he had notice and an opportunity
to be heard. Appellant was present when the proceedings were initiated and was able
to defend himself accordingly. We therefore hold Loc.R. 13.04(A) to be inapplicable to
the instant case.
{¶23} The trial court did not deny appellant due process and therefore his first
assignment of error is overruled.
7 {¶24} Appellant’s second assignment of error provides:
{¶25} “The trial court abused its discretion when it denied the motion for
continuance.”
{¶26} The decision to grant or deny a continuance is within a trial court’s
discretion. Carrico v. Carrico, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009394, 2009-Ohio-668, at ¶3. An
abuse of discretion connotes an attitude by the trial court that is arbitrary, capricious, or
unconscionable. In re N.P., 9th Dist. No. 23836, 2007-Ohio-5933, at ¶9. This court
must weigh the potential prejudice to a defendant against the trial court’s “‘right to
control its own docket and the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient dispatch of
justice.’” Id. State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67. The Unger court further
explained:
{¶27} “In evaluating a motion for a continuance a court should note inter alia: the
length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and
received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court;
whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory,
purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstances which
give rise to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the
unique facts of each case.” Id. at 67-68.
{¶28} As indicated above, appellant had notice of the hearing and an opportunity
to be heard. On April 16, 2010, however, appellant moved the court for a continuance
of the April 22, 2010 hearing to obtain further discovery relating to the attorney fees
appellee was seeking and/or had accrued. The motion had not been ruled upon prior to
April 22, 2010. Instead of hedging his bets and appearing at the previously scheduled
8 hearing, appellant sent Attorney Brown to speak with the court. As the discussion
occurred off the record, we cannot speculate as to its substance. After the
conversation, Attorney Brown evidently left the court and the hearing commenced in
appellant’s absence. Prior to taking testimony, the trial court overruled appellant’s
motion to continue from the bench, reasoning:
{¶29} “This matter has been pending for over two years and it’s time to get it
concluded which is why the Court was of the opinion that if all we needed was some
information about attorney fees we could have gotten that at this hearing today and the
matter would be resolved and done.”
{¶30} This matter had been pending since 2008. On March 3, 2010, the parties
received notice that the final hearing would be conducted on April 22, 2010. Six days
before the hearing, appellant filed his motion to continue, alleging appellee had failed to
provide certain documentation relating to the issue of attorney fees. Appellant claimed
he had attempted to obtain the evidence “throughout the past week,” but had received
no return calls from appellee’s counsel. Notwithstanding appellant’s representation that
appellee’s counsel failed to return his calls, the record indicates appellant filed his “first
set of interrogatories and request for production of documents” on the same date he
filed the motion for continuance. The matter had been pending for two years at the time
appellant filed his motion for discovery. Furthermore, appellant waited six weeks from
the hearing notice (March 3, 2010) to file his motion for production (April 16, 2010).
Finally, as indicated by the court, appellant’s concerns regarding appellee’s attorney
fees could have been addressed at the hearing on April 22, 2010. Appellant, however,
9 failed to attend the hearing. Given the circumstances of this case, we therefore hold the
trial court did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in denying the continuance.
{¶31} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶32} Appellant’s third assignment of error provides:
{¶33} “The trial court erred in ordering appellant to pay $27,775.00 in attorney
fees to Buckingham, Doolittle and Burroughs because the bills lack an hourly rate, lack
a total of hours worked, and [were] not supported by affidavit or witness testimony with
actual knowledge.”
{¶34} Preliminarily, we note an appellate court reviews a trial court’s award of
attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. Rand v. Rand (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 356, 359.
Unless the court’s order is arbitrary or unreasonable, we shall leave it undisturbed.
See, e.g., In re N.P., supra.
{¶35} Here, appellant does not appear to dispute appellee’s entitlement to fees
and costs; rather, he complains that the summary bill of $27,755 for attorney fees to
Buckingham, Doolittle and Burroughs is insufficient to meet minimal requirements of
reasonableness. We disagree.
{¶36} Summit County Domestic Relations Court Local Rule 25.04(B) provides:
{¶37} “(1) Expert testimony is not required to prove the reasonableness of
attorney’s fees.
{¶38} “(2) In determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees requested, the
court shall consider the affidavit of the attorney concerning fees and expenses, and
Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
10 {¶39} Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, admitted at the hearing, is captioned: “Summary of
Attorney Fees Paid Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs regarding innocent spouse.” The
document contains voluminous records, which purport to detail-specific services
rendered in the course of obtaining appellee’s status as an “innocent spouse.” The
exhibit, however, fails to indicate the specific amount of time attorneys for the firm spent
managing appellee’s representation on any of the listed dates. Similarly, none of the
documents indicate the hourly rates billed by attorneys representing appellee to achieve
innocent spouse status. Finally, while it appears at least seven separate individuals
(presumably attorneys) from the firm assisted appellee in achieving innocent spouse
status, there was no affidavit attached to Exhibit 4.
{¶40} We acknowledge Exhibit 4 is general and ambiguous regarding how the
firm arrived at the ultimate fee total; we also acknowledge it lacks an affidavit from an
attorney attesting to the reasonableness of the fees themselves. Under the
circumstances of this case, however, we find these deficiencies irrelevant.
{¶41} The record indicates the fees at issue were not outstanding at the time of
the hearing. Rather, the record reflects appellee had previously paid these fees in the
course of obtaining “innocent spouse status” to avoid future (and perhaps nullify past)
penalties assessed by the IRS resulting from appellant’s failure to pay outstanding taxes
to which he was obligated under the separation agreement. Appellee, therefore, is not
asking appellant to cover unpaid attorney fees that were accumulated during the
pendency of the show cause motion; rather, she is seeking reimbursement for fees paid
in the course of separate proceedings to which she was a party as a result of
appellant’s apparent willful neglect of his obligations under the divorce decree.
11 {¶42} The record demonstrates the trial court incorporated the parties’
separation agreement into the final divorce decree. Of relevance to the issue of
attorney fees is Section 12.3 of the separation agreement, which provides:
{¶43} “It is expressly stipulated that if either party fails in the due performance of
any of his or her material obligations under this Agreement, the other party shall have
the right, at his or her election, to sue for damages for breach thereof, to sue for specific
performance, to rescind this Agreement, or to seek any other legal remedies as may be
available, and the defaulting party shall reimburse the nondefaulting party of any legal
fees and expenses for any services incurred in any action or proceeding to compel
performance hereunder. ***” (Emphasis added.)
{¶44} Here, appellee was required to attain innocent spouse status to avoid tax
penalties for which she was not responsible. Although the fees were not incurred in a
proceeding to directly compel compliance with the separation agreement or divorce
decree, they were necessarily connected to and, perhaps, the first step in enforcing
compliance with the agreement and decree. Once appellee was declared an innocent
spouse, the tax liability became appellant’s sole legal obligation in the eyes of the IRS.
Although the proceedings leading to appellee being declared an innocent spouse were
not initiated to directly force appellant’s compliance with the divorce decree, the IRS will
assuredly use means that will compel appellant to lift the tax liens required by the
underlying decree which he has heretofore ignored. Given this construction, the fees
appellee incurred in the course of obtaining innocent spouse status could reasonably
fall within the gamut of reimbursable expenses contemplated by the parties’ agreement.
12 {¶45} Justice and equity also support the trial court’s decision requiring appellant
to reimburse appellee. Appellant failed to pay taxes that were his obligation under the
final decree which led to penalties for which appellee became partially, yet unfairly,
responsible. Appellee would not have incurred the litigation expenses of being declared
an innocent spouse had appellant met his obligations under the decree in a timely
manner. Appellant did not do so and, as a result, a persuasive case could be made that
he invited the expenses, regardless of their amount, in connection with the ancillary tax
litigation to which appellee became a reluctant party.
{¶46} Exhibit 4 indicates the $27,775.26 fee bill had been paid and, at the
hearing, appellee testified she, in fact, paid this amount. Because the amount was
incurred due to appellant’s failure to comply with the divorce decree, we hold the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in requiring appellant to reimburse appellee for the
legal fees she expended to duly protect herself from the consequences of appellant’s
default.
{¶47} One final point on this issue requires attention. In the underlying judgment
entry, the trial court required appellant to make “arrangements for payment of the legal
fees owed to Buckingham, Doolittle and Burroughs.” As already discussed, appellee
paid the fees to Buckingham, Doolittle and Burroughs. Thus, the order should have
required appellant to make arrangements to reimburse appellee for the fees she
previously paid to the firm. We therefore modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that
appellant is required to direct payment of the $27,775.26 to appellee, not Buckingham,
Doolittle and Burroughs.
{¶48} Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled.
13 {¶49} For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is hereby modified and affirmed as
modified.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., Eleventh Appellate District, Sitting by assignment,
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., Eleventh Appellate District, Sitting by assignment,
concur.