Winkler v. Winkler

16 Citing cases

  1. Faubel v. Faubel

    2006 Ohio 4679 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    And he points out that he has made a good-faith effort to comply by paying $85,000 over the past few years towards the support order. Citing Winkler v. Winkler (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 610 N.E.2d 1022. {¶ 39} On appeal, we will not reverse a trial court's finding of contempt absent an abuse of discretion.

  2. Musselman v. Musselman

    2004 Ohio 833 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

    {¶ 12} A significant consequence flows from the categorization of contempt proceedings as criminal: "the contemnor is entitled to those rights and constitutional privileges afforded a defendant in a criminal action." Winkler v. Winkler (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 202. Included among those rights and privileges are due process and the reasonable doubt standard of proof. Id.

  3. Samantha N. v. Lee A.R.

    Court of Appeals No. E-00-036, E-00-037, Trial Court No. 95-PA-87, 97-SU-0176 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2001)   Cited 2 times

    As the Ninth District Court of Appeals discussed in an analogous case: "It has been stated that `[s]entences for criminal contempt are punitive in nature and are designed to vindicate the authority of the court.' * * * Criminal contempt `is usually characterized by an unconditional prison sentence.' * * * By contrast, `civil contempt is to coerce the contemnor in order to obtain compliance with the lawful orders of the court.' * * * In civil contempt the `contemnor is said to carry the keys of his prison in his own pocket * * * since he will be freed if he agrees to do as ordered.' Winkler v. Winkler (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 201. (Citations omitted.) After reviewing the transcript from these consolidated cases, we conclude that the trial court was exercising its criminal contempt powers because it was clearly no longer attempting to coerce appellant to pay his child support arrearages.

  4. In re Parker

    105 Ohio App. 3d 31 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that a contemnor's right to Due Process includes the right to be heard

    Once the contempt power is classified as criminal, the contemnor is entitled to those rights and constitutional privileges afforded a defendant in a criminal action. See Winkler v. Winkler (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 202, 610 N.E.2d 1022, 1023-1024; Schrader v. Huff (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 111, 112, 8 OBR 146, 148, 456 N.E.2d 587, 588. The most important of these are the contemnor's right to due process, Winkler, supra, 81 Ohio App.3d at 202, 610 N.E.2d at 1023-1024, which includes the rights of one charged with contempt to be advised of the charges against her and to have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, as well as the chance to testify and to call other witnesses on her behalf.

  5. State v. Frazier

    2017 Ohio 7221 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    {¶ 16} Perhaps the most significant of these rights is the right to due process. Winkler v. Winkler , 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 202, 610 N.E.2d 1022 (1991). "Due process ‘requires that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel , and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in his behalf, either by way of defense or explanation.’ "

  6. Weaver v. Weaver

    2016 Ohio 1356 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    The issue is whether [the party] attempted in good faith to comply with the existing court order." Winkler v. Winkler, 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 203 (9th Dist.1991). Where full compliance with a court ordered obligation is not possible, the party still must demonstrate that he or she made a good-faith effort to comply.

  7. Swayngim v. Swayngim

    2013 Ohio 2481 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    A contemnor subject to criminal contempt sanctions is entitled to many of the rights and constitutional privileges afforded a defendant in a criminal action. Winkler v. Winkler, 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 202, 610 N.E.2d 1022 (9th Dist.1991). {¶ 38} Here, it is undisputed that Dowzell moved the court to hold Brenda in contempt for her out-of-court violation of a lawful order issued for his benefit, i.e. civil indirect contempt.

  8. Liming v. Damos

    2011 Ohio 2726 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

    * * * The most important of these are the contemnor's right to due process and to have the complainant prove the contempt beyond a reasonable doubt." Id., quoting Winkler v. Winkler (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 202, 610 N.E.2d 1022. And the court concluded that the trial court denied the appellant his due process rights. Id.

  9. Faulkner v. Pegram

    947 N.E.2d 269 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

    Brown, 64 Ohio St.2d at 252, 18 0.0.3d 446, 416 N.E.2d 610. Perhaps the most significant of these rights is the contemnor's right to due process. Winkler v. Winkler (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 202, 610 N.E.2d 1022. The right to due process encompasses the right of the accused to be advised of the charges against him, to have a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges by way of explanation or defense, and the opportunity to call other witnesses on his behalf. See In re Yeauger (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 493, 497, 615 N.E.2d 289.

  10. State v. Brandon

    2008 Ohio 403 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    Among other things, the contemnor has the right to due process. Winkler v. Winkler (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 199, 202. {¶ 12} In addition to the due process right to notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard concerning them, procedural due process provides that one charged with criminal contempt of court has the right to be represented by counsel.