Homon v. Curtis

2025 Ohio 4322

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 14-24-49
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Homon v. Curtis, 2025-Ohio-4322.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY

JAMES A. HOMON, CASE NO. 14-24-49 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

CASSIA D. CURTIS, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 2020JG048

Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded

Date of Decision: September 15, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Cassia Curtis, Appellant Case No. 14-24-49

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Cassia D. Curtis (“Curtis”), appeals from the

December 3, 2024 Judgment Entry of the Juvenile Division of the Union County

Court of Common Pleas. In that judgment entry, the trial court ruled on four

motions to show cause, two filed by Curtis and two filed by Plaintiff, James A.

Homon (“Homon”). The trial court dismissed Homon’s two show-cause motions;

dismissed one of Curtis’ show-cause motions in full; and dismissed Curtis’ other

show-cause motion in part. In the remaining part of the motion, the trial court found

Homon to be in contempt of a prior order and sentenced him to pay $11.40 to Curtis.

{¶2} In addition to arguing that the trial court erred in not assessing court

costs and attorney’s fees arising out of the contempt proceedings against Homon,

Curtis asserts several assignments of error that—as explained below—we reject

because she failed to provide the transcript necessary for us to resolve those

assignments of error. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the limited

purpose of having the trial court address the issue of court costs.

I. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶3} Curtis raises five assignments of error for our review:

First Assignment of Error

The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by not assessing all court costs arising out of the contempt proceedings against contemnor (Homon) and not requiring contemnor (Homon) to pay any reasonable attorney’s fees of appellant (Cassia), as determined by the

-2- Case No. 14-24-49

court, that arose in relation to the act(s) of contempt and thereby causes harm and prejudices appellant, her children, and their substantial rights.

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in ruling contrarily to and failing to uphold and enforce Ohio public policy, established Ohio law, the parties’ contractual agreement, and the court’s controlling orders on requirements for order concerning health insurance coverage, thereby harmfully prejudicing the appellant, the child subject to this case, and their substantial rights.

Third Assignment of Error

The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in arbitrarily, capriciously, and inconsistently applying and/or enforcing only some of the plain language of the parties’ contractual agreement – thereby failing to enforce its own orders, causing harm and prejudicial treatment toward the appellant, her children, and their substantial rights.

Fourth Assignment of Error

The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in abrogating the clearly established law of the case requiring strict adherence of all court orders by both parties. The trial court thereby harmfully prejudices the appellant, her children, and their substantial rights.

Fifth Assignment of Error

The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in failing to act in the child’s best interest and ruling arbitrarily and contrarily on matters determined by applicable Ohio policy, statute, the parties’ controlling court orders, and the parties’ contractual agreement. Thereby, the trial court is harmfully prejudicing the appellant, her children, and their substantial rights.

-3- Case No. 14-24-49

II. DISCUSSION

{¶4} This drawn-out and contentious litigation arises from a custody

complaint filed by Homon. Homon and Curtis have never been married. They

entered into a Shared Parenting Plan (“SPP”) concerning their minor child in 2021.

Both Homon and Curtis have filed numerous motions over the course of years

generally pertaining to the SPP and various court orders, including the show-cause

motions decided in the judgment entry from which Curtis now appeals.

{¶5} We address the assignments of error out of order in a manner that

facilitates our analysis. We initially point out that pro se litigants, like Curtis, must

follow the same procedures as litigants represented by counsel. State ex rel. Neil v.

French, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 10. Pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of

the law and legal procedures, and they are held to the same standard as litigants who

are represented by counsel. Id.; State v. Marks, 2024-Ohio-4863, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.)

(“[g]enerally, a pro se defendant is held to the same standard of conforming to legal

procedures as an attorney and is expected to abide by the rules of evidence and

procedure—regardless of his or her familiarity with them”).

A. Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assignments of Error

{¶6} Curtis makes several arguments in her second, third, fourth, and fifth

assignments of error. However, we are unable to reach the merits of such arguments

because she failed to provide portions of the transcript necessary to resolve those

assignments of error.

-4- Case No. 14-24-49

1. Applicable Law

{¶7} An appellate court’s review is limited to the record provided to it under

the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. Francis v. Francis, 2010-Ohio-5659, ¶ 3

(9th Dist.); see also App.R. 9; App.R. 12(A)(1)(b). “The duty to provide a transcript

for appellate review falls upon the appellant.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61

Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980); see also App.R. 10.1 “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.” Knapp at 199. “When arguing any factual matter, a transcript is

necessary on appeal as Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error by

reference to matters contained within the record.” In re Adoption of H.T., 2018-

Ohio-2806, ¶ 28 (3d Dist.).

2. Analysis

{¶8} As the appellant, Curtis had the duty to provide a transcript for our

review. She acknowledges that the trial court “presided directly over the trials on”

the show-cause motions. (Appellant’s Brief at 4). Additionally, the trial court’s

December 3, 2024 Judgment Entry states it had “reviewed the testimony that was

1 This duty is further set forth in our local rules. Third Dist.Loc.R. 9(A) (“[i]t is the duty of the appellant . . . to arrange for the timely transmission of the record, including any transcripts of proceedings, App.R. 9(C) statement, or App.R. 9(D) statement, as may be appropriate, and to ensure that the appellate court file actually contains all parts of the record that are necessary to the appeal”).

-5- Case No. 14-24-49

presented on October 22, 2024” and indicates that the court relied on testimony in

deciding the motions. Yet, Curtis concedes she did not provide us with a transcript,

except for a single page from a hearing on November 5, 2024 concerning a

procedural matter. (Appellant’s Brief at 6).

{¶9} Assignments of error two through five each involve factual matters.

Indeed, fact issues permeate these assignments of error, and Curtis makes numerous

assertions and arguments pertaining to factual matters that underlie the issues

presented. For example, she references the following in her summary of arguments

on these four assignments of error, respectively: alleged “unrebutted evidence of

Homon’s repeated noncompliance”; Homon’s alleged “repeated failures to exercise

scheduled parenting time”; her own alleged “de minimis noncompliance” yet

Homon’s alleged “well-documented pattern of willful disregard for his court-

ordered obligations”; and the trial court allegedly “excusing Homon from engaging

with medical providers even when the[ir] child suffered an injury during his

parenting time and permitting Homon to default on both financial and parental

responsibilities without consequences.” (Id. at 7-8). Curtis also contends that her

motions to show cause were “supported by ample documentation and credible

testimony.” (Id. at 4).2

2 Curtis’ brief is laden with additional factual assertions we cannot verify absent a transcript of the trial court proceedings. It is unclear if this information was adduced in the trial court proceedings or was gratuitously incorporated as part of her arguments on appeal.

-6- Case No. 14-24-49

{¶10} Curtis asserts that providing us with a complete transcript was cost

prohibitive. (Appellant’s Brief at 6). However, as the Supreme Court of Ohio has

explained, “[t]he narrative statement provided for in App.R. 9(C) is an available,

reliable alternative to an [indigent] appellant unable to bear the cost of a transcript.”

State ex rel. Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56, 58 (1986); see also Holmer v.

Holmer, 2008-Ohio-3228, ¶ 31-32 (3d Dist.). Curtis did not submit a narrative

statement. Francis, 2010-Ohio-5659, at ¶ 4-7 (9th Dist.) (despite appellant’s

argument that he was indigent and thus could not afford to have a transcript

prepared, the lack of a transcript or statement of the evidence prepared under App.R.

9(C) precluded review of appellant’s ten assignments of error in his custody case).

{¶11} It is an appellant’s obligation to demonstrate his or her claims of error

by the trial court. In this case, reviewing the testimony is necessary to substantively

resolve Curtis’ assignments of error. Without a transcript or an App.R. 9(C)

statement of the evidence, we are unable to assess the validity of Curtis’ claims and,

therefore, we must presume the validity of the trial court’s proceedings and affirm

its judgment. Knapp, 61 Ohio St.2d at 199; Francis, 2010-Ohio-5659, at ¶ 7 (9th

Dist.); Baker v. Walmart Corp., 2025-Ohio-1806, ¶ 8-11 (6th Dist.). Accordingly,

Curtis’ second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are overruled.

B. First Assignment of Error

{¶12} In the first assignment of error, Curtis argues the trial court erred in

failing to assess court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against Homon when it

-7- Case No. 14-24-49

found Homon in contempt. She argues that such court costs and reasonable

attorney’s fees must be assessed against Homon pursuant to R.C. 3109.051(K). She

requests that we reverse the trial court’s judgment and award her $4,086.75 in

attorney’s fees, “plus all other court costs related to the contempt and appeal ($400)

against [Homon] that the trial court failed to issue in relation to this specific

contempt conviction.” (Appellant’s Brief at 11).

{¶13} Ohio adheres to the “American rule” concerning the recovery of

attorney fees: a prevailing party in a civil action may not recover attorney fees as a

part of the costs of litigation. Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School, 2022-

Ohio-3586, ¶ 35. One well-established exception to the American rule is when a

statute creates a duty to pay attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 36. One such statute is R.C.

3109.051(K), which provides in part:

(K) If any person is found in contempt of court for failing to comply with or interfering with any order or decree granting parenting time rights issued pursuant to this section or section 3109.12 of the Revised Code or companionship or visitation rights issued pursuant to this section, section 3109.11 or 3109.12 of the Revised Code, or any other provision of the Revised Code, the court that makes the finding, in addition to any other penalty or remedy imposed, shall assess all court costs arising out of the contempt proceeding against the person and require the person to pay any reasonable attorney’s fees of any adverse party, as determined by the court, that arose in relation to the act of contempt . . .

R.C. 3109.051(K). Thus, when the statute applies, it “only mandates the assessment

of court costs ‘arising out of the contempt proceeding’ and ‘reasonable’ legal fees

-8- Case No. 14-24-49

arising ‘in relation to the act of contempt.’” Frick v. Howell, 2015-Ohio-3639, ¶ 49

(4th Dist.).

{¶14} R.C. 3109.051(K) requires only “reasonable” attorney’s fees be paid

by the person found in contempt. The party seeking to be awarded attorney’s fees

bears the burden of establishing that the fees are reasonable. In re Estate of Francis,

2025-Ohio-1215, ¶ 4 (3d Dist.) (considering attorney fees under R.C. 2113.36,

which mandates “reasonable attorney fees” paid by the executor of an estate be

allowed as part of the expenses of administration). “Reasonableness for purposes

of calculating attorney fees is a question of fact and the trial court must have

evidence before it probative of that issue in order to make the finding.” Hart v.

Spenceley, 2013-Ohio-653, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.). Determining whether attorney’s fees

are reasonable, and the amount of those fees, are matters within the trial court’s

discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Estate of

Francis at ¶ 4. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id.

{¶15} Significant for our purposes, the trial court must have evidence before

it probative of whether the requested attorney’s fees arose in relation to the legal

proceeding upon which the contempt finding was made and were for services

actually performed by the attorney. See R.C. 3109.051(K); Hart at ¶ 22, 24-25.

Thus, “[a]lthough the language in R.C. 3109.051 is mandatory, attorney fees must

-9- Case No. 14-24-49

also be reasonable and based on the actual services performed by the attorney and

the value of those services.” Hart at ¶ 25.

2. Factual Background

{¶16} As referenced above, the December 3, 2024 Judgment Entry addressed

four separate show-cause motions, two filed by Homon and two filed by Curtis. The

trial court dismissed both of Homon’s motions and one of Curtis’ motions in full.

The trial court dismissed almost all of Curtis’ other motion, but did find Homon in

contempt based on one of the arguments in the motion.3 Specifically, the trial court

agreed with Curtis that Homon violated the SPP by not reimbursing her for $11.40

she paid to have a prescription filled for an injury to their child’s foot. The court

stated:

While the amount is minor, it certainly appears to the Court that the Defendant has provided documentation as to uninsured or unreimbursed medical expense and the amount of $11.40 has not been paid to Defendant. Therefore, the Court will find that the Plaintiff is in contempt [of this Court’s prior Order regarding the reimbursement of a medical and/or prescription drug expense] for failing to reimburse the Defendant in the amount of $11.40.

(December 3, 2024 Judgment Entry at 10).

{¶17} The trial court also denied both parties’ requests for an award of

attorney’s fees. The court explained that it did not recall any testimony as to “the

3 The trial court rejected all of Curtis’ other arguments in that same motion, such as claims that Homon failed to exercise parenting time, failed to properly or timely request a modification regarding transportation, failed to provide proper care and medical attention to their child, and refused to communicate about an injury suffered by their child.

-10- Case No. 14-24-49

reasonableness or necessity of the fees incurred.” (Id. at 11). The trial court did not

address whether to assess court costs (and, if so, in what amount) with respect to

that part of Curtis’ motion on which she prevailed.

3. Analysis – Attorney Fees

{¶18} As an initial matter, we note that the trial court recognized the

applicability of R.C. 3109.051, given that the trial court previously applied R.C.

3109.051(K) to violations of the SPP when it found Curtis in contempt. In that

instance, the court did not award attorney’s fees to Homon due to insufficient

evidence of the necessity for or reasonableness of such fees. (See Sept. 30, 2022

Magistrate’s Decision; Feb. 15, 2023 Judgment Entry (overruling objections to

Magistrate’s Decision)).

{¶19} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to award

Curtis any attorney’s fees. In addition to making a general request for attorney’s

fees in her motion, Curtis submitted a closing memorandum concerning the show-

cause motions and requesting an award of $4,068.75 in attorney’s fees. She attached

a document to her closing memorandum showing that she had “incurred $4,068.75

in attorney fees in this matter since June 1, 2024.” However, that document lumps

together various vaguely-described tasks performed by her attorney that may or may

not pertain to the show-cause motion on which Homan prevailed. This is important

not only because one of Curtis’ motions was dismissed entirely, but also because

the trial court rejected several of the alleged instances of contempt in Curtis’ other

-11- Case No. 14-24-49

motion and only found Homon in contempt for one specific action. See Frick, 2015-

Ohio-3639, at ¶ 49 (trial court appropriately limited its award of court costs and

attorney’s fees where other party was only found in contempt for denying visitation

on some of the dates listed in the show cause motion and “was not found to be in

contempt for other alleged denials of visitation or for otherwise violating the court’s

order”). Moreover, it is readily apparent that some of the fees listed in the

supporting document related to the time her attorney spent responding to Homon’s

show-cause motions. In short, the trial court did not have evidence before it that

showed which attorney’s fees “arose in relation to the act of contempt” pertaining

to Homan’s failure to pay for the child’s prescription medication. R.C.

3109.051(K); see also Hart, 2013-Ohio-653, at ¶ 22 (affirming trial court’s decision

not to award any attorney’s fees under R.C. 3109.051(K) because the evidence “did

not specify what portion of the total amount of attorney fees were related to the

[successful] contempt motions” and, “[t]herefore it was impossible for the court to

determine an award of attorney fees”).

4. Analysis – Court Costs

{¶20} However, the trial court never addressed Curtis’ request for court costs

after finding Homon in contempt. Curtis requested court costs in her contempt

motion, and the trial court found that Homan was in contempt, at least as related to

the medication expense. Thus, R.C. 3109.051(K) required the trial court to “assess

all court costs arising out of the contempt proceeding against” Homon. In failing

-12- Case No. 14-24-49

to address this issue, the trial court erred as a matter of law. See Cichanowicz v.

Cichanowicz, 2013-Ohio-5657, ¶ 99-101 (3d Dist.) (where R.C. 3109.051(K)

applied and the trial court found a party in contempt on five motions, it erred as a

matter of law in deciding only to award court costs and attorney’s fees for two of

those contempt findings). We remand to the trial court for further proceedings in

order to address the assessment of court costs as it relates to that portion of Curtis’

motion seeking a contempt finding for Homan’s failure to pay for the prescription

medication. If it is possible to determine the court costs arising out of the contempt

proceeding against Homon, then the trial court must assess them. Kimball v. Austin,

2001 WL 866260, *2 (9th Dist. Aug. 1, 2001) (remanding for further proceedings

where trial court failed to address the assessment of court costs pursuant to R.C.

3109.051(K), despite finding party in contempt of visitation order).

{¶21} Curtis’ first assignment of error is overruled as it relates to the trial

court’s decision not to award attorney’s fees and sustained as relates to the trial

court’s failure to address the assessment of court costs for the portion of the

contempt motion on which Curtis prevailed.

IV. CONCLUSION

{¶22} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Juvenile Division of

the Union County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part.

Having found error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and

-13- Case No. 14-24-49

argued, we remand this cause to the trial court for the limited purpose of addressing

the assessment of court costs pursuant to R.C. 3109.051(K).

Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded

WALDICK, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.

-14- Case No. 14-24-49

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, it is the judgment and

order of this Court that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed

in part with costs assessed equally between Appellant and Appellee for which

judgment is hereby rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for

further proceedings and for execution of the judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

Mark C. Miller, Judge

Juergen A. Waldick, Judge

John R. Willamowski, Judge

DATED: /jlm

-15-