Armstrong v. Armstrong, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2004)
Armstrong v. Armstrong, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2004)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} On January 23, 2004, appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal due to lack of a final appealable order. Appellant has not filed a response.
{¶ 3} In Boltauzer v. Boltauzer (Feb. 13, 1996), 11th Dist. No. 94-L-155 WL 1692963, this court stated:
{¶ 4} "Ohio courts have repeatedly held that contempt of court consists of two elements. The first is a finding of contempt, and the second is the imposition of a penalty or sanction. Until both have been made, there is no final order.Chain Bike v. Spoke `N Wheel, Inc. (1979),
{¶ 5} In the present case, the trial court found appellant to be in contempt but she was also given the opportunity to purge herself of this contempt by doing a specific act within three months. This, the second element of contempt has not yet occurred; namely a finding by the trial court that the contemnor has failed to purge herself and the imposition of a penalty or sanction. Until that second order is made by the trial court, the contempt issue is not ripe for review. Simmons v. Simmons (Apr. 21, 1998), 11th Dist. No. 97-T-0128, Memorandum Opinion.
{¶ 6} Accordingly, appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal is herby granted due to lack of a final appealable order
Christley and Rice, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.