Brewer v. Brewer

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County · 2019 · Family Law

Family Lawcontemptabuse of discretionsettlement agreementconsent judgmentequitable remedynet proceedsproperty sale

Facts

The parties entered an agreed judgment entry providing that William would list a house for sale with a licensed realtor within 90 days of Mrs. Brewer's death, while Nicole and Michelle, who remained in the house temporarily, were responsible for taxes, utilities, maintenance, repairs, and avoiding waste or damage. After Mrs. Brewer died, William did not timely list the property and eventually sold it for $118,000 after undertaking substantial repairs, paying back taxes, and rehabilitating the property. At the evidentiary hearing, William presented photographs and testimony showing the house had been left in serious disrepair, while Michelle disputed the extent of the damage. The trial court found the property damage frustrated the purpose of the consent judgment and concluded William was entitled to all sale proceeds after deductions.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to hold William in contempt and by enforcing the agreed judgment through an equitable remedy that awarded Nicole and Michelle none of the sale proceeds, despite the agreement's provision that Nicole would receive 30 percent of the net proceeds with a minimum of $27,000?

Rule

A contempt decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and contempt is disobedience of a court order. A settlement agreement is a contract, but when conduct not contemplated by the agreement frustrates the purpose of a consent judgment, a trial court may, within its sound discretion, fashion an equitable remedy to facilitate compliance with its prior orders.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, a probate-related consent judgment required Aaron Pike to list a duplex for sale with a licensed realtor within 60 days after his aunt’s death. The judgment also required Lena Pike and Tara Pike, who remained in possession, to pay utilities and taxes, maintain the duplex, and avoid waste. After they moved out, Aaron found extensive interior damage and six months of unpaid taxes, spent four months repairing the property, and sold it later than the order specified.

If Lena and Tara move to hold Aaron in contempt solely because he did not list the duplex within 60 days, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. Contempt is disobedience of a court order, but the decision whether to hold a party in contempt rests within the trial court’s discretion. Under the majority opinion, when the opposing parties’ unanticipated conduct frustrated the purpose of the consent judgment and made timely listing impractical, the court could decline to find contempt. The key is that the delay was caused by the occupants’ failure to maintain the property as required, not that strict compliance was impossible in every sense. (Derived from Brewer v. Brewer (n.d.).)