Ham v. Ham , 2009 Ohio 3668 ( 2009 )

[Cite as Ham v. Ham, 2009-Ohio-3668.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
WYANDOT COUNTY
DANIEL G. HAM,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-09-04
v.
DARLA HAM, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court
Domestic Relations Division
Trial Court No. 05DR122
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 27, 2009
APPEARANCES:
J. C. Ratliff and Jon L. Jenson for Appellant
Dennis E. Pfeifer for Appellee
Case No. 16-09-04
ROGERS, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Darla Ham, appeals the judgment of the
Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas finding her in contempt of court for
failing to provide Plaintiff-Appellee, Daniel Ham, with keys to a camper and
several vehicles Daniel was awarded pursuant to the parties’ divorce decree; for
causing damage to the camper; and, for failing to provide Daniel with various
tools he was awarded pursuant to the divorce decree. On appeal, Darla argues that
the trial court erred in finding her in contempt of court because Daniel failed to
establish that she violated the trial court’s order by clear and convincing evidence.
Based upon the following, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} Daniel and Darla were married in 1998. In October 2005, Daniel
filed a complaint for divorce and voluntarily vacated the marital residence located
at 18205 County Road 96 in Upper Sandusky, Wyandot County (“the residence”).
In December 2005, the trial court granted an order restraining both parties from
dissipating the parties’ assets, properties, and funds, and granting Darla exclusive
use of the residence.
{¶3} On January 10, 2007, Darla and Daniel were divorced pursuant to a
final judgment entry decree of divorce. The decree provided, in part, that Daniel
was awarded “equipment and personal property in the semi trailer.” (Jan. 10, 2007
Decree, p. 4). Attached to the decree was an appraisal of the Hams’ property,
-2-
Case No. 16-09-04
including an appraisal of property inside the semi-trailer, specifically including a
tool chest, drill press, AC 295 welder, Makita grinder, and parts washer.
{¶4} Neither party appealed from the January 10, 2007 final judgment;
however, on January 19, 2007, Darla filed a motion to vacate the final judgment
pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), which the trial court denied. Thereafter, on January 31,
2007, Darla filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of her
Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Subsequently, in February 2007, the trial court purported to
grant Darla’s motion for reconsideration, vacate the final judgment entry decree of
divorce, and grant Darla leave to object to the magistrate’s decision. In May 2007,
the trial court overruled Darla’s objections and issued a second final judgment
entry decree of divorce, from which Darla and Daniel both appealed.
{¶5} In March 2008, this Court dismissed Darla’s and Daniel’s appeals,
finding that the rules of civil procedure did not authorize the trial court to grant
Darla’s motion for reconsideration. See Ham v. Ham, 3d Dist. No. 16-07-04,
2008-Ohio-828. Additionally, this Court found that the trial court should vacate
its February 2007 order granting her motion for reconsideration as well as the May
2007 judgment entry decree of divorce. Shortly thereafter, the trial court vacated
its February 2007 order and the May 2007 decree of divorce.
{¶6} In May 2008, Daniel moved the trial court for an order directing
Darla to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to comply
-3-
Case No. 16-09-04
with its January 10, 2007 order, claiming that she refused to (1) provide him with
keys to a camper, four-wheeler, one-ton truck, and GMC Sierra truck; (2) transfer
titles to the camper and four-wheeler from her name to his; and, (3) make
available various items of personal property, which he alleged she hid or removed
from the residence.
{¶7} In July 2008, Darla moved the trial court to find Daniel in contempt
for failing to comply with its January 10, 2007 order for removing certain items of
her personal property.
{¶8} In August 2008, the trial court held a hearing on both motions for
contempt before a magistrate, at which the following testimony was heard.
{¶9} Darla testified that she was awarded the residence in the divorce;
that, on January 15, 2007, someone broke into the residence by kicking in the door
and “robbed” her; and, that she believed it was Daniel who broke into the
residence. Darla then testified that, within the same time frame of the robbery,
someone killed her chickens and dogs, and insinuated that Daniel was responsible.
However, Darla then admitted that the police officer investigating the incident
concluded that a raccoon killed the chickens. Additionally, Darla first testified
that she had not filed a claim against a dog food company claiming that tainted
dog food caused her dogs’ death, but then admitted that she did file such a claim.
-4-
Case No. 16-09-04
{¶10} Concerning the keys at issue, Darla testified that she never provided
Daniel with keys to the camper, four-wheeler, one-ton truck, and GMC Sierra
because she did not have possession of the keys at the time the divorce was
initiated, and that she never saw any of the keys after Daniel left and filed for
divorce, which was in October 2005. However, Darla then testified that she rode
the four-wheeler several times in 2006 with her boyfriend, Jeremy Frisch, prior to
Daniel coming into the residence to retrieve his property, and that she believed
Daniel or his acquaintances may have taken the keys after coming to the residence
to retrieve his property. Additionally, Darla testified that she was able to access
the camper because it was not locked, and that she did not know how it later
became locked because she did not have the key.
{¶11} Concerning the titles at issue, Darla testified that she never
transferred titles to the camper or four-wheeler to Daniel; that she did not know
where the original titles were, and she did not have them; that she turned the
original titles over to her first trial attorney, who copied them, and she had not
seen them since; that her first trial attorney returned all of her papers, but the
original titles were not with them; that her second trial attorney only had copies of
the titles; that she never inquired of her trial attorneys whether they still had the
original titles; and, that she had taken no action to obtain duplicate titles because
she did not know how.
-5-
Case No. 16-09-04
{¶12} Regarding the camper, Darla testified that she removed the
microwave from the camper and her son removed the faucet from the camper prior
to Daniel filing for divorce because the faucet in the house was bad. However,
Darla later testified that she directed her son to remove the faucet from the camper
because the camper was damaged due to the pipes freezing. Darla then testified
that she noticed the camper was gone on January 19 or 20, 2007, and reported it as
stolen to the police, even though Daniel had been awarded it in the divorce decree
of January 10, 2007; and, that some of her personal belongings were in the camper
when Daniel took it.
{¶13} Regarding Daniel’s tools, Darla testified that, to her knowledge, she
gave Daniel everything he was awarded in the divorce decree; that she believed
Daniel came to the residence on at least five occasions to retrieve his property; that
she did not recall if any of the tools Daniel was awarded were still present at the
residence after the divorce was filed and while she was dating Jeremy Frisch; that
some of the items Daniel claimed he had been unable to retrieve were still sitting
in the yard of the residence; that she hired Bob Culver to do construction on the
residence soon after she was awarded it by the final divorce decree; and, that, to
her knowledge, none of the property Daniel claimed he had been unable to retrieve
was in the home while Culver was doing construction because he had already
retrieved his property.
-6-
Case No. 16-09-04
{¶14} Regarding Daniel’s property in the semi-trailer parked at the
residence, Darla testified that she never had property moved from the trailer to the
house or from the house to the trailer. However, Darla then testified that, while
Culver was doing construction on the residence, from October until December
2007, she directed him to move property from the house into the semi-trailer; that
Culver did most of the moving, so she did not know what was moved into the
trailer, except for several bags of “garage sale” clothing. Additionally, Darla
testified that she did not check the trailer to see what was in it until the break-in at
the residence, in January 2007; that, when she checked the trailer at that time, she
saw that it was nearly empty; that she never put a lock on the semi-trailer or
removed a lock; that she did not know how the lock was broken off from the
trailer or how the trailer was emptied; and, that she did not know who emptied the
trailer or removed the lock.
{¶15} Lee Newman, Darla’s boyfriend at the time of the hearing, testified
that, in January 2007, Darla contacted him and told him that someone had kicked
in the door to the residence and some of her property was missing; that her
brother-in-law was at the residence fixing the door; that the house looked like “it
had been gone through” and some property was missing; that, when he began
seeing Darla in September 2006, the only tools he observed at the residence were a
-7-
Case No. 16-09-04
saw and a drill; that he had not been through the entire house; and, that Darla
never told him that she was not going to let Daniel take his property.
{¶16} Jeremy Frisch testified that he dated Darla from January 2006 until
July 2006; that he was at the residence nearly every day during that time period;
that, during this time, he saw tools, power tools, construction tools, and a power
washer at the residence; that he did not believe the tools were related to any
construction going on at the residence during his relationship with Darla because
he never saw any contractors; that Darla told him things during their relationship
such as “that she wasn’t gonna [sic] give [Daniel] that” (hearing tr., p. 51); that he
believed “that” referred to “whatever they discussed on the phone. Like, if it was
about getting the rest of his items or he – he claimed there was more clothes there
for him that she wasn’t gonna [sic] let him have ‘em” (Id.); that Darla never told
him that she was going to hide Daniel’s tools; that Darla used a key to unlock the
camper and showed him the inside of the camper in June or July 2006, and it was
full of property; that Darla showed him the inside of the semi-trailer, which
appeared to be full of property, but he did not get close enough to see what the
property was; that he saw the keys to the four-wheeler because he rode the four-
wheeler with Darla during their relationship; that the last time he was at Darla’s
residence was in July 2006; that Darla ended their relationship at this time due to a
dispute over her sale of a house trailer to him; that Darla testified against him in
-8-
Case No. 16-09-04
Kenton Municipal Court concerning the trailer in May 2007; that Darla lied under
oath during those proceedings; and, that, in his opinion, Darla was not a truthful
and honest person.
{¶17} Deputy David Doty testified that, in February 2007, he received a
complaint from Daniel that someone had taken cabinets, tools, doors, and other
items out of a semi-trailer at the residence; that he found evidence of forced entry
into the trailer because fresh gouge marks appeared on both doors indicating that
someone had taken an axe to the doors to open them; that he opened the trailer and
it was mostly empty; that he and Daniel tried to locate the items Daniel explained
were missing; that he knocked on the door to the residence, but Darla would not
come out; that he attempted to call Darla, but she did not return his phone calls;
that, through the window, he could see new, wrapped doors and windows stacked
up in one of the rooms of the residence; and, that Daniel indicated those were
some of the items that were missing from the semi-trailer.
{¶18} Bob Culver testified that he owned a construction company; that
Darla hired him to do construction on her residence through the CHIPS low-
income program run by the state; that he began the construction in October 2007
and finished in late December 2007; that part of the job was installing nine or
twelve windows, which Darla apparently already had; that he and his co-
contractors noticed that the house and basement were “full of stuff,” including
-9-
Case No. 16-09-04
windows and a large amount of tools; that they had to move things out into a semi-
trailer in order to be able to work on the rooms; that the semi-trailer already
contained many items including doors, windows, a laser level worth $1,500, and
hand tools worth around $7,500 to $10,000, in his estimation; that, during the
construction, many of the contractors’ small items came up missing including light
bulbs, magic markers, and a drill; that the first time the light bulbs came up
missing, he found them on a shelf in the back room of the residence and put them
back with the contractors’ supplies; that the bulbs came up missing again; and, that
he believed Darla was only honest “when it’s convenient for her.” (Id. at 113).
{¶19} Howard Bennington, Daniel’s friend, testified that, during the
marriage, he assisted Darla and Daniel in removing items from a barn at the
residence including tools, an air compressor, a workbench, windows, and kitchen
cabinets, and placed them into a semi-trailer sitting in the driveway; that, while
assisting Daniel in remodeling the residence, he observed many of Daniel’s tools;
that, in February or March 2008, he and Daniel attempted to retrieve the property
from the semi-trailer, but it was empty; and, that he has not seen any of that
property in Daniel’s possession since they initially moved it into the semi-trailer.
{¶20} Donald Ham, Daniel’s father, testified that he often worked with
Daniel around his remodeling jobs; that he was familiar with Daniel’s tools; that
he estimated the value of Daniel’s tools to be around $25,000; that, in
-10-
Case No. 16-09-04
approximately January 2007, he assisted Daniel in retrieving his property from the
residence on two occasions; that the amount of tools Daniel retrieved from the
residence after the divorce was not nearly this $25,000 amount; that he had never
seen anything at Daniel’s current residence that Daniel had claimed was missing;
that, on their second trip to the residence, the lock had been broken off the semi-
trailer; that, on this occasion, the men retrieved the camper; that the camper was
locked and Daniel did not have keys, so he climbed in through the vent after they
pulled it to his residence; that the interior condition of the camper was filthy; that
the plumbing was torn out of the camper’s kitchen, including a missing faucet;
and, that everything in the camper was damaged, and Daniel could not lock it
because Darla had the keys.
{¶21} Duane Ham, Daniel’s brother, testified that he was familiar with
Daniel’s tools; that Daniel purchased “top of the line” tools (Id. at 191); that he
estimated the cost of Daniel’s tools to be $20,000; that Daniel currently had about
15% as many tools as he did prior to the divorce; that he went to the residence on
one occasion to pick up Daniel’s toolbox because Daniel was no longer allowed
on the premises due to a restraining order; that he brought three men with him;
that the men retrieved a large toolbox that was approximately five feet high; that
the tool box was considerably lighter on this occasion than when he had helped
Daniel move it on a prior occasion during the marriage; that the toolbox had
-11-
Case No. 16-09-04
previously been nearly full, and was now practically empty; that the men also
attempted to pick up Daniel’s clothing, but were provided with a small bag of
clothing that looked like rags; that the men were not able to retrieve any power
tools, just mechanical tools; that, after Daniel retrieved the camper, he saw the
inside and it was “pretty banged up” (Id. at 198); and, that some of the items were
missing from the camper including the sink area.
{¶22} Daniel testified that, in November or December 2005, his brother
and several friends were permitted to go to the residence to retrieve his tool boxes
and his clothing; that the only clothing he received was from the “rag pile” at the
residence and that he received none of his dress or work clothing; that he was
never able to retrieve all of his clothing and personal effects; that he did not know
what happened to the rest of his clothing; that, in December 2005, he was
permitted to walk through the house with an officer to attempt to retrieve the rest
of his clothing, but he could only find a few items; that, in January 2007, his
attorney advised him he could go to the residence and retrieve all of the property
he had been awarded; that he went to the property with Bennington and his father,
Donald; that he did not contact Darla prior to going to the property; that, on this
occasion, he had access to the entire house and retrieved some of his property, but
was unable to retrieve everything he was awarded due to time constraints and his
inability to find many items; that he was unable to move the semi-trailer because
-12-
Case No. 16-09-04
the ground was too muddy, but he put a padlock on it because he had been
awarded it and it contained his property; that, on this occasion, he also looked
inside the camper and saw that it was full of his tools, but he could not pull it away
because the ground was too muddy; that, in early February 2007, he made another
trip to the property with his father and retrieved the camper; that, on this occasion,
he unlocked the semi-trailer to see if his property was still in it, and it was; that, in
mid February 2007, he went to the property with Bennington and his father and
observed that the lock was broken off the semi-trailer; that he retrieved several
cabinets, an empty tool box, and a drill press from the trailer; that he called
Deputy Doty about the property missing from the trailer; that Darla’s vehicle was
in the driveway, but she would not answer the door when Deputy Doty knocked;
that, immediately after the deputy left, Darla came out of the house, screamed at
him, and told him he needed to call his attorney; that his attorney advised him to
leave the property, so he left; that he had not returned to the property since; that,
after the appeal was decided, he went to his attorney to talk about getting his
property, “but [he] didn’t figure anything would still be there” (Id. at 247); and,
that he had not contacted Darla since the appeal was decided.
{¶23} Concerning his tools, Daniel testified that, prior to filing for divorce
in October 2005, he spent approximately $32,000 to $35,000 on power and hand
tools for working on engines; that his tools were insured for $28,000; that he had
-13-
Case No. 16-09-04
spent about $15,000 on uninsured construction tools; that, at the time of the
hearing, he had only been able to retrieve about 25% of the tools he had before he
filed for divorce; that he valued his missing tools at around $25,000 to $28,000;
and, that many of the tools he was able to retrieve from the residence were
weathered, rusty, and worthless from sitting outside.
{¶24} Concerning the titles at issue, Daniel testified that he never received
the titles for the camper and four-wheeler; that the titles were in Darla’s name, and
she had them in her possession during the divorce; that, during the marriage, the
parties kept the titles in a filing cabinet in the living room at the residence; that
Darla’s attorney attached copies of those titles to an April 2007 pleading; and, that
he took the divorce decree to the title department and attempted to transfer the
titles, but they would not permit him to do so without the original titles.
{¶25} Concerning the keys at issue, Daniel testified that he never received
the keys for the camper and four-wheeler, so he had been unable to use them even
though he retrieved them; that, during the marriage, the parties kept the keys
behind a door at the residence; and, that he got into the camper without the keys
by crawling in through an exhaust panel where the refrigerator used to be and
unlocking the door from the inside. Additionally, Daniel testified that, when he
retrieved the camper, there were many stains on the floor, the faucet was missing,
-14-
Case No. 16-09-04
the water heater had broken from freezing, the microwave was missing, and the
refrigerator was damaged.
{¶26} In October 2008, the magistrate issued her decision recommending
the trial court find Darla in contempt and finding, in part, that, regarding the titles,
Darla’s claim of ignorance regarding their whereabouts was untruthful, and, even
if the titles were lost, only Darla had the ability to obtain duplicate titles to transfer
to Daniel; and, that Darla removed the faucet and microwave from the camper
during the divorce because, at the time of appraisal, the microwave and faucet
were in place.
{¶27} In February 2009, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s
recommendations and found Darla in contempt of court for (1) failing to provide
Daniel with keys for the camper, four-wheeler, GMC Sierra, and one-ton truck; (2)
for failing to transfer the titles to the camper and four-wheeler to Daniel; (3) for
damaging the camper by removing the faucet and microwave; and, (4) for failing
to provide Daniel with numerous specified tools. Additionally, the trial court
ordered Darla to provide Daniel with the keys to the camper, four-wheeler, GMC
Sierra, and one-ton truck; to transfer the titles to the camper and four-wheeler to
Daniel; to reimburse Daniel for replacement of the faucet and microwave removed
from the camper; and, to reimburse Daniel for the value of the tools she withheld
in the amount of $2,314.14. Further, the trial court ordered Daniel to return to
-15-
Case No. 16-09-04
Darla her property that was in the camper, which he admitted to having, but
declined to find him in contempt because Darla “should have removed her
property from the camper upon receiving the final Decree of Divorce” (Feb. 2009
Judgment Entry, p. 4). Finally, the trial court ordered Darla to serve a ten-day jail
term, with the ability to purge if she complied with its orders.
{¶28} It is from this judgment that Darla appeals, presenting the following
assignment of error for our review.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT WHEN THE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE HAD VIOLATED THE COURT’S
PRIOR ORDER BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
{¶29} In her sole assignment of error, Darla argues that the trial court erred
in finding her in contempt of the court order because Daniel did not sufficiently
prove that she had violated the court order. Specifically, Darla argues that Daniel
went to the residence on three occasions to remove items of personal property
following the divorce decree; that Daniel never announced he was coming to the
residence and made no prior arrangements to retrieve his property; that Daniel was
freely able to enter the home on two of those occasions and retrieve his personal
property, even though he chose to leave certain items behind; that Daniel admitted
she did not interfere with his ability to retrieve his personal property; that it was
not her responsibility to arrange for Daniel to pick up his items or to transport the
-16-
Case No. 16-09-04
items to him; that some of the items the trial court found she had withheld were
not listed in the original joint exhibits filed with the decree of divorce and were
never identified in the decree as items awarded him in the divorce; that the trial
court found her to be in contempt for failing to turn over a parts washer even
though it was not listed as a missing item in Daniel’s motion for contempt and he
offered no testimony that he had not received it; that, although the keys and titles
to various vehicles were at the marital residence at one time, there had been a
break-in, and she no longer had the keys or titles in her possession; that she
removed the microwave and faucet from the camper during the parties’ marriage;
and, that Daniel admitted he had possession of items of her personal property, but
the trial court refused to find him in contempt of court.
{¶30} Contempt of court is a disregard of the court’s authority which
“tends to bring the administration of the law into disrespect and * * * impede,
embarrass or obstruct the court in the performance of its functions.” In re Green
(1961), 172 Ohio St. 269, 273 (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by
In re Green (1962), 369 U.S. 689. “A finding of civil contempt requires clear and
convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor has failed to comply with the
court’s prior orders.” Moraine v. Steger Motors, Inc. (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d
265, 268, citing ConTex, Inc. v. Consolidated Technologies, Inc. (1998), 40 Ohio
App.3d 94. “Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as that measure or
-17-
Case No. 16-09-04
degree of proof which is more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, but not
to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal
cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or
conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 331 (citations omitted).
{¶31} When reviewing a trial court's finding of contempt, appellate courts
apply an abuse of discretion standard. State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel (1981), 65
Ohio St.2d 10, 11. An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court’s attitude in
reaching its decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore
v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
{¶32} First, Darla contends that the trial court erred in finding her in
contempt of court because Daniel came to the residence on three occasions to
retrieve his property following the divorce decree and was freely able to enter the
premises on two of these occasions; because she did not interfere with Daniel’s
ability to retrieve his property on these occasions; and, because it was not her
responsibility to transport his property to him. However, although testimony was
heard that Daniel came to the residence on several occasions to retrieve his
property and was freely able to enter the premises, testimony was also heard that
many of the items Daniel was awarded in the divorce were no longer on the
premises, or that he was unable to find them on the premises. Further, testimony
-18-
Case No. 16-09-04
was heard that, after Daniel filed for divorce, several witnesses saw many of the
items at the residence that Daniel was eventually awarded by the divorce decree
and unable to retrieve because they were no longer at the residence.
{¶33} Additionally, Darla argues that, although the keys and titles to
various vehicles were at the marital residence at one time, there had been a break-
in; that she no longer had the keys or titles in her possession; and, that she
removed the microwave and faucet from the camper during the parties’ marriage.
However, Daniel testified that Darla had the keys and the titles during the divorce,
and corroborated this evidence with Frisch’s testimony that Darla rode the four-
wheeler and unlocked the camper after the filing date, as well as the fact that
Darla’s counsel made copies of the titles and attached them to a motion after he
filed for divorce. It is apparent that the trial court found Daniel’s testimony to be
more credible than Darla’s, and our review of the record demonstrates that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in making this determination, particularly given
Darla’s evasiveness and numerous contradictory statements. Although Darla
testified that the keys and titles to the vehicles were either stolen in a break-in,
taken by Daniel when he retrieved his property, or that the titles had been lost by
her prior attorneys, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding by
circumstantial evidence that Darla did have the titles and disobeyed the court’s
order to turn them over to Daniel. Additionally, although Darla testified that she
-19-
Case No. 16-09-04
removed the microwave and faucet from the camper prior to Daniel filing for
divorce, the magistrate found that appraisal of the camper executed during the
divorce indicated that these items were present, and Darla gave two contradictory
reasons for removal of the faucet. Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in finding Darla in contempt for (1) failing to provide Daniel with
keys for the camper, four-wheeler, GMC Sierra, and one-ton truck; (2) failing to
transfer the titles to the camper and four-wheeler to Daniel; (3) damaging the
camper by removing the faucet and microwave; and, (4) failing to provide Daniel
with numerous specified tools.
{¶34} Darla next argues that some of the items the trial court found she had
withheld were not listed in the original joint exhibits filed with the decree of
divorce and were never identified in the decree as items awarded to Daniel in the
divorce. However, this Court’s thorough review of the original divorce decree,
including Exhibits A, B, and C attached thereto and incorporated by reference,
reflects that all of the items the trial court found Darla was in contempt for
withholding were awarded to Daniel. Accordingly, we do not find that the trial
court abused its discretion in finding Darla in contempt for withholding these
items.
{¶35} Next, Darla argues that the trial court erred in finding her in
contempt for failing to turn over a parts washer because it was not listed as a
-20-
Case No. 16-09-04
missing item in Daniel’s motion for contempt and he offered no testimony that he
had not received it. Darla is correct that this item was not listed as a missing item
in Daniel’s motion for contempt; however, the divorce decree awarded Daniel the
contents of the parties’ semi-trailer, the appraisal of the semi-trailer contents
attached to the parties’ divorce decree specifically listed a parts washer, and
Daniel testified that he was only able to retrieve several cabinets, an empty tool
box, and a drill press from the semi-trailer because the rest of the items were
missing. Thus, by process of elimination, evidence existed that Daniel did not
receive the parts washer. Accordingly, we do not find that the trial court abused
its discretion in finding Darla in contempt for failing to turn over the parts washer.
{¶36} Finally, Darla complains that Daniel admitted he had possession of
items of her personal property, but the trial court refused to find him in contempt
of court. App.R. 16 requires an appellant’s brief to contain a statement of the
assignments of error set forth for review and an argument with respect to each
assignment of error. Where arguments have not been adequately set forth for
review, an appellate court is not required to address them. App.R. 16(A)(7);
App.R. 12(A)(2). Accordingly, as Darla did not set forth this argument in an
assignment of error in her appellate brief, we need not address it.
-21-
Case No. 16-09-04
{¶37} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr
-22-