Barton v. Barton, 2016–CA–12

Citation86 N.E.3d 937,2017 Ohio 980
Decision Date17 March 2017
Docket NumberNo. 2016–CA–12,2016–CA–12
Parties Douglas C. BARTON, Plaintiff–Appellant v. Keesha BARTON, nka Evans, Defendant–Appellee
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

DOUGLAS C. BARTON, 437 Warwick Place, Fairborn, Ohio 45324, PlaintiffAppellantPro Se

ANDREW JOHNSTON, Atty. Reg. No. 0088008, 215 West Water Street, P.O. Box 310, Troy, Ohio 45373, Attorney for DefendantAppellee

OPINION

WELBAUM, J.

{¶ 1} This case involves the most recent of several appeals involving the divorce of Douglas Barton and Keesha Barton, nka Evans, as well as civil protection orders ("CPOs") issued in connection with domestic violence cases that the parties filed against each other.1 Douglas is currently appealing, pro se, from a trial court decision that held him in contempt for failing to pay attorney fees and that issued a withholding order for spousal support that he failed to pay. In addition, the trial court dismissed the CPO that Douglas had obtained against Keesha.

{¶ 2} In support of his appeal, Douglas has presented twelve assignments of error. Because the assignments of error are without merit, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 3} In August 2013, Douglas Barton filed a divorce complaint against his wife, Keesha. They had only been married since July 2012, and had a tumultuous relationship. This case was labeled as Greene County Domestic Relations Case No. 2013–DR–207.2

{¶ 4} On November 27, 2013, Keesha filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order, alleging that Douglas had committed various acts of violence against her. This case was labeled as Greene County Domestic Relations Case No. 2013–DV–193. An ex parte order was entered, and after a hearing in April 2014, a CPO was issued on April 30, 2014, precluding Douglas from having any contact with Keesha, requiring him to stay at least 500 feet away from her, and so on. The order was set to expire on April 14, 2019. Douglas appealed from the CPO, and we reversed the order on September 23, 2015. We concluded that "the evidence regarding the contact between the parties in 2013 does not constitute sufficient, credible evidence to support a finding that Ms. Barton was placed, by force or threat of force, in fear of imminent serious physical harm." Barton v. Barton , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2014-CA-21, 2015-Ohio-3869, 2015 WL 5691887, ¶ 20 ( Barton I ).

{¶ 5} On December 2, 2013, Douglas filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order, alleging that Keesha had committed various acts of violence against him. The case was labeled as Greene County Domestic Relations Case No. 2013–DV–196. An ex parte order was entered, and after a hearing in April 2014, a CPO was issued on April 30, 2014, precluding Keesha from having any contact with Douglas, requiring her to stay at least 500 feet away from him, and so on. The order was set to expire on April 14, 2019. Keesha did not appeal from the order. She had also pled guilty to disorderly conduct in 2013, a charge that was reduced from domestic violence. According to Douglas, he agreed to reduce the charge so as not to interfere with her military career, and on the basis that the property in the divorce would be split fairly—an outcome that he claims did not occur.

{¶ 6} Amidst the domestic violence proceedings, the parties' divorce proceeded to final disposition on September 12, 2014.

Previously in February 2014, Judge Hurley had transferred all three cases to Judge Campbell, a retired judge sitting by assignment, to hear all issues concerning domestic violence and divorce. One issue in the divorce case was a prenuptial agreement that the parties had allegedly signed. Judge Campbell decided not to credit the agreement because the list of property included in the prenuptial agreement was missing. This has been a bone of contention with Douglas throughout the case, because Douglas claimed there were three copies of the agreement. According to Douglas, two copies were located at the marital residence, which was Keesha's home, and Douglas did not re-enter the house after leaving the day that Keesha was arrested for domestic violence. Thus, he had no copy of the agreement. He alleged that when he was able to obtain a copy of it, the property list that had originally been attached was missing.

{¶ 7} Douglas claimed that Keesha had removed the property list to prevent enforcement of the prenuptial agreement. He further claimed that the attorney who drew up the agreement had the third copy, but would not release it to him.

{¶ 8} In the divorce decree, Judge Campbell divided the parties' property based on what he thought was equitable. He refused to grant either party an interest in the other's retirement or pension funds since the bulk of these funds had been accrued prior to their brief marriage. (At the time, Douglas had approximately $143,000 in retirement funds). Each party also retained the house he or she had owned prior to marriage.

{¶ 9} In addition, Judge Campbell awarded Keesha $500 per month in spousal support, for 12 months, with the first payment being due 30 days after the filing of the divorce decree. The support was to be paid to Keesha's attorney to avoid violating the CPOs. In the decree, the court noted that this award was based on the parties' income disparity and the fact that Douglas had not paid for marital expenses during the marriage. At the time, Douglas made $82,000 yearly from employment and $7,700 yearly from USAF Reserves. Keesha was a member of the military and made about $63,000 per year, including housing and other allowances. The trial court indicated in the decree that it was not reserving continuing jurisdiction over spousal support.

{¶ 10} The trial court also ordered Douglas to pay $4,500 in attorney fees, which was significantly less than the amount Keesha had requested (over $22,000). The court found blame on each party's part, but concluded that some of the fees were caused by a contempt motion Keesha was required to bring against Douglas.

{¶ 11} Douglas filed an appeal from the divorce decree, but we dismissed his appeal on March 31, 2015, because he failed to file a proper appellate brief. We had previously notified Douglas that his brief exceeded our page limit. We struck the brief and allowed him to refile the brief in a proper format. However, Douglas refused to refile his brief, contending that 35 pages was insufficient to present his case. See Barton v. Barton , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2015-CA-53, 2016-Ohio-5264, 2016 WL 4168857, ¶ 4 and fn.1 ( Barton II ). On July 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio refused to accept jurisdiction of Douglas's appeal of the dismissal. See Barton v. Barton , 143 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2015-Ohio-2747, 34 N.E.3d 133 (Table) (not accepting appeal for review).

{¶ 12} In the meantime, Keesha had filed a motion on May 29, 2015, in 2013–DV–196, asking the court to dismiss the CPO that had been filed against her. A hearing eventually occurred concerning that matter on March 7, 2016.

{¶ 13} On August 11, 2015, Keesha filed a motion to show cause and for contempt in Case No. 2013–DR–207. This motion was based on Douglas's failure to pay the $4,500 in attorney fees that had been awarded to Keesha in the divorce decree. Keesha also asked for attorney fees in connection with this motion. A hearing on the motion was set for October 15, 2015, before Judge Hurley.

{¶ 14} Keesha filed another motion in Case No. 2013–DR–207 on August 11, 2015, asking the court to issue a withholding order directed to Douglas's employers. This was based on Douglas's failure to pay any spousal support payments. Again, Keesha asked for attorney fees in connection with the filing of the motion. The hearing on this motion was also set for October 15, 2015, before Judge Hurley.

{¶ 15} On August 13, 2015, on his own motion, Judge Hurley filed a restraining order preventing Douglas from contacting Judge Campbell. Previously, on August 11, 2015, Douglas had filed an affidavit of disqualification with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asking that Judges Hurley and Campbell be disqualified from presiding on his cases. The Supreme Court denied this affidavit on August 17, 2015, and also denied Douglas's motion for reconsideration on September 18, 2015.

{¶ 16} On August 18, 2015, Judge Campbell filed an order recusing himself from any further participation in the three cases involving Douglas Barton. Douglas then filed a notice of appeal on September 10, 2015, from the restraining order that Judge Hurley had imposed. On the same day, Douglas filed a "Demand for Determination of Void Judgment, Demand for Jury Trial, and Other Motion(s)." We later characterized this as a motion for relief from judgment. See Barton II , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2015-CA-53, 2016-Ohio-5264, 2016 WL 4168857, ¶ 7. Judge Hurley overruled the motion for relief from judgment on September 15, 2015, and on October 13, 2015, Douglas filed a notice of amended appeal, asking that this order be included in the appeal involving the restraining order. We granted his request. Barton II at ¶ 9.

{¶ 17} We issued our decision in Barton I on September 23, 2015, and concluded that the trial court had erred in granting the CPO against Douglas. Barton I , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2014-CA-21, 2015-Ohio-3869, 2015 WL 5691887, ¶ 20. Based on that finding, we rejected Douglas's remaining twelve assignments of error as moot. Id. at ¶ 21–22.

{¶ 18} On October 15, 2015, Keesha filed a motion to compel Douglas to provide discovery and also asked for sanctions, including attorney fees for filing the motion. The same day, Judge Hurley filed an order requiring Douglas to provide discovery within seven days. The court also stated that the issue of attorney fees would be considered at the final hearing.

{¶ 19} Subsequently, Keesha's attorney, Charles Slicer, was allowed to withdraw as counsel for Keesha, based on threats that Douglas had allegedly made on Slicer's life. The hearing set for October...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Howard v. HCR Manorcare, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 23, 2018
    ...judge." (Citation omitted.) In re Disqualification of Pontious , 94 Ohio St.3d 1235, 1236, 763 N.E.2d 603 (2001). Accord Barton v. Barton , 2017-Ohio-980, 86 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 152 (2d Dist.) (courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to deny or grant continuances). Again, under the circu......
  • Lelak v. Lelak
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • September 30, 2022
    ...... part of costs taxable to a defendant found guilty of civil. contempt.'" Id., quoting Barton" v. Barton, 2017-Ohio-980, 86 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 85 (2d. Dist). (Other citations omitted.). . . \xC2"......
  • Lelak v. Lelak
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • September 30, 2022
    ...... part of costs taxable to a defendant found guilty of civil. contempt.'" Id., quoting Barton" v. Barton, 2017-Ohio-980, 86 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 85 (2d. Dist). (Other citations omitted.). . . \xC2"......
  • MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Lion Apparel, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 28, 2020
    ..., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21407, 2006-Ohio-4796, 2006 WL 2640232, ¶ 17.11 Under that "highly deferential" standard, Barton v. Barton , 2017-Ohio-980, 86 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 98 (2d Dist.), "we will affirm unless we find the trial court's attitude ‘unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ " Howa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT