Geter v. Geter

Citations

• 194 N.E.3d 825
• 2022 Ohio 2804

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in finding appellant in contempt for failing to pay an arrearage repay order. Appellant was not entitled to have his payments suspended under R.C. 3119.06(A), which provides for suspension of support due where a party is paying a \minimum child support order\ and is receiving means-tested public assistance as defined by R.C. 3119.01(C)(12)(a). R.C. 3119.01 and R.C. 3119.06(A) do not apply because appellant was not paying a \minimum child support order.\ Instead, the contempt motion involved an \arrearage only\ order and was governed by R.C. 3123.14, not R.C. Chap. 3119. In considering whether appellant should be held in contempt, the trial court was not deciding what amount should be withheld for the child support arrearage. That issue had already been decided pursuant to a prior arrearage repay order that appellant failed to appeal. The court, rather, was addressing whether appellant failed to pay on the arrearage as previously ordered and, therefore, was in contempt of court. As a result, R.C. 3123.14 applied. This statute allows courts to punish parties who fail to comply with arrearage repay orders. Appellant also failed to file a transcript when he objected to the magistrate's finding that he willfully failed to comply with the arrearage repay order. Consequently, the facts in the transcript cannot be considered. Thus, there was no evidence that appellant was on means-tested assistance when the arrearage accrued or when the contempt hearing was held. However, even if appellant had been on means-tested assistance at the time of the hearing, R.C. Chap. 3119 did not apply. Judgment affirmed.