Mote v. Mote

[Cite as Mote v. Mote, 2026-Ohio-3566.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BROWN COUNTY KEVIN MOTE, : CASE NO. CA2026-01-002 Appellant, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 9/14/2026 CHERI MOTE nka MEINKEN, : Appellee. : : APPEAL FROM BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. 2015-0025 Law Office of Vivian L. Martin, LLC, and Vivian L. Martin and Bethany L. Crosland, for appellee. Treleven & Klingensmith, LLC, and John D. Treleven, for appellant. ____________ OPINION SIEBERT, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Kevin Mote ("Husband"), appeals a decision of the Brown County  Brown CA2026-01-002 Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, entering judgment in favor of his former spouse, Cheri Mote ("Wife"), for amounts owed under the parties' divorce decree. {¶ 2} This appeal arises from Husband's failure to satisfy a balloon mortgage payment that the divorce decree expressly required him to pay. After Wife paid the outstanding balance to prevent foreclosure, the trial court entered judgment in her favor for the amount she paid. Because the trial court's decision merely enforced, rather than modified, Husband's obligations under the decree, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 3} Husband and Wife were divorced pursuant to a decree of divorce entered on August 31, 2015. Relevant to this appeal, Wife owned certain real property before the marriage. During the marriage, the parties executed a mortgage encumbering that property. {¶ 4} The divorce decree classified the mortgage as marital debt. As part of the property division and spousal support award, the trial court ordered Husband to pay one- half of the monthly mortgage obligation as his share of the marital debt and the remaining one-half as spousal support. Husband's obligation was to continue until the mortgage was paid in full. Thus, although the obligation was characterized in two parts, Husband was responsible for the entire monthly mortgage payment of $410.85, which the decree required him to pay directly to the lender. The decree also required Husband to satisfy the balloon payment upon maturity of the mortgage in 2023. {¶ 5} The decree did not reserve jurisdiction to modify spousal support. It further provided that if Wife sold the property or refinanced the mortgage, Husband would remain obligated to pay Wife the amounts that otherwise would have been due under the mortgage obligation. {¶ 6} The balloon payment, approximately $48,000, became due on May 1, 2023. -2-  Brown CA2026-01-002 Husband failed to make the required payment. Wife thereafter filed a motion to hold Husband in contempt for failing to comply with the decree. {¶ 7} Following a hearing, the magistrate found Husband in contempt for failing to pay the balloon obligation but declined to impose sanctions. The magistrate determined that Wife had failed to mitigate her damages by refinancing the mortgage or selling the property and ordered her to do so. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, and neither party filed objections. {¶ 8} Husband nevertheless continued to fail to satisfy the balloon obligation. To prevent foreclosure, Wife paid the outstanding principal balance and associated late fees. She subsequently filed a second motion for contempt and sanctions based on Husband's continued failure to comply with the decree. {¶ 9} The magistrate held a hearing on Wife's motion of August 25, 2025. In a written decision issued on September 16, 2025, the magistrate found that Husband had been ordered to make the balloon payment and had failed to do so without "any justification for noncompliance." The magistrate entered judgment in Wife's favor in the amount of $51,365.86, awarded interest and costs, and imposed a judgment lien against Husband's real property. {¶ 10} Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court overruled those objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. Husband now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review. II. Appeal A. Husband's First Assignment of Error {¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment in Wife's favor because the divorce decree did not reserve jurisdiction to modify the terms of his obligation after the balloon payment became due in -3-  Brown CA2026-01-002 2023. According to Husband, the trial court improperly modified the decree by requiring him to pay Wife directly rather than pay the balloon amount to the mortgage lender. We find no merit to this argument. {¶ 12} A domestic relations court generally lacks jurisdiction to modify or amend a division of property contained in a divorce decree unless the parties expressly consent in writing to the modification. Colombo v. Chesser, 2018-Ohio-1477, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.), citing R.C. 3105.171(I). A court, however, retains jurisdiction to enforce its prior orders and to fashion appropriate remedies when a party fails to comply with the terms of a decree. Smith v. Farmer, 2022-Ohio-4180, ¶ 29 (2nd Dist.). A court does not modify a property division merely because it takes action necessary to enforce obligations previously imposed by the decree. Id. {¶ 13} Here, the divorce decree expressly required Husband to satisfy the balloon payment when the obligation matured in 2023. There is no dispute that the balloon payment became due on May 1, 2023, or that Husband failed to make the required payment. Wife ultimately paid the outstanding principal balance and associated fees herself to prevent foreclosure. She then sought relief based on Husband's failure to satisfy his obligation under the decree. {¶ 14} The trial court's subsequent decision enforcing the terms of the decree did not modify Husband's obligation. The court did not increase the amount Husband was required to pay, extend the duration of the obligation, or otherwise alter the parties' substantive rights under the decree. Instead, the court enforced Husband's existing obligation by entering judgment in Wife's favor for the amount she paid to satisfy the balloon payment. {¶ 15} Husband argues that the trial court nevertheless modified the decree by changing the recipient of the payment from the mortgage lender to Wife. This argument -4-  Brown CA2026-01-002 is unpersuasive. The change in the recipient of the payment resulted from Wife's having satisfied the obligation after Husband failed to do so. The trial court did not create a new obligation; it required Husband to satisfy the financial obligation that the decree had already imposed upon him. {¶ 16} Accordingly, the trial court was not exercising continuing jurisdiction to modify the parties' property division or spousal support obligations. It was enforcing an existing obligation that Husband failed to satisfy. The trial court therefore had jurisdiction to enter judgment in Wife's favor, and its judgment is not void. Davis v. Davis, 2022-Ohio- 3179, ¶ 58 (12th Dist.) (courts may enforce their own orders, including divorce decrees), citing Civ. R. 75(J). {¶ 17} Husband's first assignment of error is overruled. B. Husband's Second Assignment of Error {¶ 18} In his second assignment of error, Husband argues that the trial court's 2025 judgment was barred by res judicata because the court had previously found him in contempt and declined to impose sanctions. Husband also argues that the divorce decree did not permit Wife to recover amounts she paid to satisfy the balloon obligation. We find no merit to either argument. Res Judicata {¶ 19} Husband first maintains that Wife's 2025 motion was, in effect, an improper attempt to revisit the magistrate's 2023 decision finding him in contempt but declining to impose sanctions. According to Husband, Wife's remedy was to object to and appeal that decision. He therefore claims that res judicata barred Wife from seeking any subsequent relief arising from his failure to make the balloon payment. {¶ 20} The premise of this argument is flawed. Wife's second motion for contempt did not seek reconsideration of the 2023 decision or ask the court to impose sanctions -5-  Brown CA2026-01-002 that had previously been denied. Instead, the motion sought relief based on events that occurred after the 2023 proceeding. Although the court had previously found Husband in contempt for failing to satisfy the balloon obligation, Husband remained noncompliant, and Wife ultimately paid the outstanding mortgage balance and related fees herself to prevent foreclosure. The 2025 motion therefore sought relief based on Husband's continued failure to comply with the decree and the resulting financial loss Wife incurred. {¶ 21} Res judicata applies only to matters that were, or could have been, litigated in a prior proceeding. Lycan v. Cleveland, 2022-Ohio-4676, ¶ 23. At the time of the 2023 hearing, Wife had not paid the outstanding mortgage balance. Thus, the damages underlying the 2025 judgment had not yet occurred and could not have been litigated in the earlier proceeding. The 2025 motion did not seek to relitigate the issues resolved in 2023; rather, it sought relief based on Husband's continued noncompliance and the additional consequences of that noncompliance. Res judicata therefore does not bar the 2025 judgment. {¶ 22} Husband's contention that Wife was required to appeal the 2023 contempt decision is also unavailing. As we have previously held, a trial court's finding of contempt is a final appealable order only when the court has imposed a penalty or sanction. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Heidler, 2019-Ohio-4311, ¶ 32 (12th Dist.). Indeed, "[b]efore a finding of contempt of court constitutes a final appealable order, two elements must exist: (1) a finding of contempt, and (2) the imposition of a penalty or sanction." Hetterick v. Hetterick, 2013-Ohio-15, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). Because the trial court declined to impose any penalty or sanction in 2023, the contempt finding was not a final appealable order. Wife therefore was not required to appeal that finding to preserve her ability to seek relief based on Husband's subsequent noncompliance and her resulting payment of the mortgage debt. -6-  Brown CA2026-01-002 Enforcement of the Decree {¶ 23} Finally, Husband argues that the trial court's decision conflicts with the plain language of the divorce decree because the decree did not expressly address the possibility that Wife would satisfy the balloon obligation herself. He maintains that his obligation terminated once the mortgage was paid in full. We disagree. {¶ 24} As noted above, the decree required Husband to satisfy the balloon payment when the obligation matured in 2023. There is no dispute that Husband failed to do so. Wife's subsequent payment of the outstanding balance to prevent foreclosure did not erase Husband's failure to comply with the decree or relieve him of the financial consequences of that failure. {¶ 25} The trial court's decision did not impose a new obligation or create rights not contemplated by the decree. Rather, it enforced the obligation already imposed on Husband by requiring him to reimburse Wife for the amount she paid to satisfy that obligation. To hold otherwise would allow Husband to avoid the balloon-payment requirement altogether because Wife took steps to protect her property after Husband failed to comply with the decree. {¶ 26} Nor does the decree's silence regarding Wife's payment of the mortgage balance operate as a release of Husband's obligation. The decree expressly addressed circumstances in which Husband fulfilled his obligation, Wife sold the property, or Wife refinanced the mortgage. It did not address the circumstance presented here: Husband's failure to make the balloon payment, followed by Wife's payment of the debt to prevent foreclosure. The absence of an express provision addressing that circumstance does not prevent the court from enforcing the obligation the decree plainly imposed upon Husband. {¶ 27} Because the trial court's decision enforced, rather than modified, the parties' rights and obligations under the divorce decree, Husband's arguments are without merit. -7-  Brown CA2026-01-002 The trial court properly entered judgment in Wife's favor for the amount she paid to satisfy Husband's obligation. {¶ 28} Husband's second assignment of error is overruled. III. Conclusion {¶ 29} Having overruled both of Husband's assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. {¶ 30} Judgment affirmed. PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur. JUDGMENT ENTRY The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Brown County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24. /s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge /s/ Mike Powell, Judge /s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge -8-