Berry-Silverman v. Silverman

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the denial of Melissa Berry-Silverman’s motion to hold Andrew Silverman in contempt. The court concluded that she failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he violated orders concerning marital-home repair expenses, an equalization payment, or transfers of retirement assets. The court also held that the magistrate’s reference to unclean hands did not alter the failure to prove contempt.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find appellee in contempt because appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the repairs were major and necessary, that appellee violated the decree, or that appellant paid the claimed repair expenses.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying contempt because appellant failed to establish the amount of Heather Deskins's fees and therefore failed to establish the precise amount of the equalization payment appellee owed.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying contempt because the decree required both parties to cooperate in dividing their respective retirement accounts, and appellant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that appellee alone failed or refused to complete the transfers.
4. The magistrate's reference to the unclean-hands doctrine did not require reversal because appellant independently failed to prove appellee's contempt by clear and convincing evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to find appellee in contempt for allegedly failing to cooperate in maintaining the saleability of the marital residence and equally divide major necessary repair expenses.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to find appellee in contempt for allegedly failing to make the $14,213 equalization payment, reduced by the appropriate portion of Heather Deskins's fees.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to find appellee in contempt for allegedly failing to complete the ordered retirement-account transfers.
4. Whether the magistrate's reference to the unclean-hands doctrine warranted reversal of the denial of appellant's contempt motion.

Disposition

affirmed