Friedah v. Friedah

• Decision Date: 13 May 2019
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 2018-L-086
• Citation: 2019 Ohio 1842
• Parties: KRISTEN FRIEDAH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FREDRICK FRIEDAH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2019 Ohio 1842

KRISTEN FRIEDAH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FREDRICK FRIEDAH, Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2018-L-086

COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

May 13, 2019

OPINION

Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.

Case No. 2013 DR 000383.

Judgment: Affirmed.

R. Russell Kubyn, Kubyn & Ghaster, LLP, 8373 Mentor Avenue, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Frank R. Brancatelli, 7318 Gallant Way, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.

{¶1} On January 17, 2017, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granted appellee, Kristen Friedah's ("Mother"), motion for contempt. Appellant, Fredrick Friedah ("Father"), appeals from the trial court's June 1, 2018 dismissal of his motion to vacate the order of contempt.

{¶2} The parties married in October 1998, and three children were born of the marriage. The parties separated in October 2011, at which time the three minor children resided with Mother in Ohio, and Father resided in New York.

{¶3} On June 28, 2013, Mother filed a complaint for divorce in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Father was served with the complaint and notice of hearing by certified mail, but he did not answer, plead, or otherwise appear.

{¶4} The complaint for divorce was granted on April 18, 2014 ("divorce decree"), and Mother was designated residential parent and legal custodian of the three minor children. Father was ordered to pay child support and an additional amount for medical support when health insurance is not available. Father was also ordered to pay a sum of $1,555.00 towards Mother's attorney fees and court costs and a sum of $4,688.00 towards a division of tax liability debt. Father was served with the divorce decree by regular mail.

{¶5} In July 2014, Mother filed a motion to relocate to Tennessee. On August 29, 2014, Father filed a response indicating he had no objection to Mother relocating to Tennessee with the three minor children. Mother provided her new address to the trial court and Lake County Child Support Enforcement.

{¶6} On May 9, 2016, Mother filed a motion for contempt, requesting the trial court order Father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to pay health care expenses for the minor children in the amount of $3,717.65; attorney fees in the amount of $1,555.00; and tax liability debt in the amount of $4,688.00. On June 6, 2016, Mother filed an amended motion, with leave of court, that included a statutorily required affidavit.

{¶7} The trial court issued an order to Father to appear and show cause at a pretrial hearing before the magistrate. According to the magistrate's decision, both Fatherand Mother appeared pro se for the pretrial on September 1, 2016. A transcript of the pretrial hearing is not in the record on appeal.

{¶8} A trial was scheduled for December 1, 2016. According to the magistrate's decision, Mother appeared pro se, but Father did not appear or otherwise contact the trial court. The record on appeal does not include a transcript of the trial.

{¶9} The magistrate issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 12, 2016. The magistrate concluded Mother had provided clear and convincing evidence that Father was in contempt of the trial court's April 18, 2014 divorce decree by failing to pay $4,668.00 for the division of tax liability debt; $1,555.00 in attorney fees; and $3,647.65 in uninsured medical expenses for the minor children. Father was served with the decision via regular mail and did not file any objections.

{¶10} On January 17, 2017, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision. Father was ordered to serve 20 days in the Lake County Jail unless he purged his contempt by paying Mother the sum of $9,890.65 within 24 months of the order at the rate of $412.11 per month. The trial court ordered Mother to notify the court by motion if the contempt was not purged so that an imposition hearing could be set.

{¶11} On March 8, 2018, Mother filed a motion to impose sentence, stating Father had failed to comply with the January 17, 2017 judgment entry. Mother requested the trial court immediately impose the 20-day jail sentence and award her attorney fees. On the same date, Mother filed a motion to modify child support and a motion requesting the trial court order Father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support as ordered.

{¶12} A hearing was set for June 21, 2018, on the motion to impose sentence and the motion to show cause. Father was served with the motions and hearing notice via certified mail.

{¶13} On May 14, 2018, Father filed a "Motion to Vacate Void January 17, 2017 Judgment Entry," contending the trial court did not have continuing personal jurisdiction over either party because they both lived outside the state of Ohio. Father argues none of the provisions in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act of 2008 establish a basis for the trial court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce or modify a previously issued child support order. He argued Mother would not be prejudiced by vacation of the order, because she could have the matter "transferred/certified to a tribunal in the forum in which she has voluntarily relocated."

{¶14} Mother filed a brief in opposition, responding that a trial court has the inherent authority to enforce its own prior orders through contempt proceedings even when the parties and children no longer reside in the issuing state.

{¶15} The trial court dismissed Father's motion to vacate, stating a domestic relations court has ongoing jurisdiction to enforce its own orders. The trial court relied on Ohio Civil Rule 75(J), which applies to divorce, annulment, and legal separation actions. The rule provides, in part: "The continuing jurisdiction of the court shall be invoked by motion filed in the original action, notice of which shall be served in the manner provided for the service of process under Civ. R. 4 to 4.6." Thus, the trial court stated that its continuing jurisdiction to enforce a divorce decree is invoked when service has been perfected or when a party that is not properly served voluntarily appears before the court and defends on the merits of the case. The trial court concluded as follows:

Herein, Defendant has not asserted that he was not properly served. Rather, he states that the parties both currently reside outside of the State of Ohio, and without citing to any authority, argues that their change of residence precludes the Court from enforcing its orders through its contempt power. This argument is misplaced. Defendant was properly served with all motions in this case. According to the Magistrate's Decision filed December 12, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant both appeared at the pretrial on the contempt motions, thereby submitting themselves to the Court's jurisdiction. This Court was within its power to issue the January 17, 2017 Judgment Entry finding Defendant in contempt.

Defendant further argues that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) applies to proceedings in this case. However, the motions to show cause which led to findings of contempt herein were for failure to pay tax debt, failure to pay attorney fees, and failure to pay for ordinary and extraordinary healthcare expenses for the children. These motions do not fall under the purview of UIFSA, as the Court was not adjudicating any issues related to child support. Again, the Court was within its power to find the Defendant in contempt of its prior orders.

{¶16} Father noticed an appeal from this entry and asserts two assignments of error:

[1.] The trial court erred as a matter of law when it dismissed Defendant's Motion to Vacate the January 17, 2017 Judgment Entry deemed to be void pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), specifically Ohio Revised Code §3115.201, which became effective January 1, 2016, when it failed to establish the basis upon which the Lake County, Ohio Domestic Relations Court had continuing personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant to enforce an order it previously issued when neither party nor the children were residents of the State of Ohio.

[2.] The trial court erred when it determined that motions to show cause which lead to findings of contempt for failure to pay a tax debt, failure to pay attorney fees, and failure to pay for ordinary and/or extraordinary healthcare expenses for the children do not fall under the purview of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).

{¶17} Both of Father's assignments of error pertain to the 2008 version of the Uniform Family Support Act ("UIFSA" or "the Act"), codified in Ohio at R.C. 3115.101 etseq., which became effective as of January 1, 2016. All states have adopted UIFSA.¹ The Act controls the establishment, enforcement, or modification of support orders across state lines and "aims at creating a system in which only one valid support order is in effect at any one time." Cruz v. Cumba-Ortiz, 116 Ohio St.3d 279, 2007-Ohio-6440, ¶19 (citation omitted).

{¶18} Under his first assignment of error, Father argues the trial court erred by dismissing his motion to vacate the order of contempt because the trial court did not establish the basis upon which it had continuing personal jurisdiction to enforce its divorce decree under UIFSA. Whether a court has jurisdiction of the parties to an action is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. See Bureau of Support v. Brown, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 00APO742, 2001-Ohio-3450, *2 (Nov. 6, 2001).

{¶19} Father relies on R.C. 3115.201 of UIFSA, which provides eight ways in which a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident in a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order:

(1) The individual is personally served with summons within this state.

(2) The individual submits to the jurisdiction

...