Summary
holding that because no evidence had been adduced to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, it would not reverse a decision of an appellate court refusing to find a party in contempt
Summary of this case from Rootstown Township v. DrennenOpinion
No. 80-587
Decided March 11, 1981.
Contempt — Appeal — Court decision not reversed, when — Civ. R. 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law unnecessary.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County.
This court, in State, ex rel. Ventrone, v. Birkel (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 461, affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Summit County. We stated, at page 462, that the appellees, certain Summit County officials, "***have a statutory duty to establish standards of poor-relief payments `sufficient to maintain health and decency,' with which failure to comply constitutes a valid basis for an action in mandamus. We hold that such a duty exists and that***[appellees] have failed to comply with said duty."
Following remand of the case to the Court of Appeals, studies were undertaken by appellees to determine the "health and decency" needs of general relief recipients. Appellees determined that $101 per month for a single individual was an appropriate amount.
On March 14, 1979, appellants filed charges of contempt against appellees in the Court of Appeals alleging that appellees had failed to establish proper standards as required by the previous court orders. The Court of Appeals ordered appellees to submit written documentation of the factors considered in reaching the $101 payment amount or, in the alternative, to submit in writing the procedures which would be followed to determine the sum necessary to satisfy the previous orders. Appellees filed some documentation with the Court of Appeals, but the court found this documentation inadequate. Subsequently, appellees prepared and submitted a study which fixed an amount of $137 in cash benefits per month for a single individual, plus other benefits in kind as defined in R.C. 5113.01.
On January 22, 1980, appellants filed supplemental charges of contempt. On February 21, 1980, the Court of Appeals refused to find appellees in contempt. The court stated that "***the actions of***[appellees] in preparing the study referred to and in setting a correspondingly higher monthly relief payment schedule satisfies those orders. In so ruling, we do not suggest that the sum set is necessarily correct or even adequate."
Appellants filed a request for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law under Civ. R. 52. The Court of Appeals denied that request on the basis that Civ. R. 52 is inapplicable to a motion for contempt.
The cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.
Ms. Margaret F. Corneille and Mr. Anthony J. Touschner, for appellants.
Mr. Stephen M. Gabalac, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. William E. Schultz, for appellees.
This court will not reverse the decision of the court below in a contempt proceeding in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Cady v. Cleveland Worsted Mills Co. (1933), 126 Ohio St. 171. The Court of Appeals determined that appellees were not in contempt of prior court orders.
No evidence has been adduced to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in not finding appellees contempt. Therefore, that decision will not be disturbed.
We note, as did the Court of Appeals, that the sum set by appellees is not necessarily correct or even adequate. That question, however, is not before us in this appeal.
Appellants also raise the issue of the refusal of the Court of Appeals to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Civ. R. 52, which provides, in part:
"When questions of fact are tried by the court without a jury, judgment may be general for the prevailing party unless one of the parties in writing or orally in open court requests otherwise before the journal entry of a final order, judgment, or decree has been approved by the court in writing and filed with the clerk of the court for journalization, or not later than seven days after the party filing the request has been given notice of the court's announcement of its decision, whichever is later, in which case, the court shall state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law.
"*** Findings of fact and conclusions of law required by this rule and by Rule 41(B)(2) are unnecessary upon all other motions including those pursuant to Rule 12, Rule 55 and Rule 56." (Emphasis added.)
The above emphasized language is dispositive of this issue. Civ. R. 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary in a contempt proceeding.
Civ. R. 52 is significantly different from Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Under federal practice, findings of fact and conclusions of law may be required in a motion for contempt. See Wright Miller, 9 Federal Practice and Procedure, 694, Section 2575.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES and C. BROWN, JJ., concur.