LAW.coLAW.co

Poorman v. Poorman

2026-08-31

Summary

Holding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order finding the defendant failed to purge was not final and appealable; it left the matter unresolved by scheduling a future sentencing hearing without executing a sentence.

In a divorce-related contempt case, the defendant appealed from a trial court order finding her in violation of contempt purge conditions. The trial court had previously found her in contempt, imposed a 30-day jail sentence and $250 fine conditioned on her ability to purge the contempt, and later determined she failed to meet the purge conditions. The trial court then scheduled a sentencing hearing for a later date but had not yet executed any sentence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether an order finding failure to purge contempt conditions is a final appealable order absent execution of sentence
  • Timing of appellability in contempt cases involving purge conditions
  • Jurisdiction of appellate court over non-final trial court orders

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed from an April 13, 2026 trial court order finding her in contempt and unable to purge, with sentencing scheduled for a future date.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

[Cite as Poorman v. Poorman, 2026-Ohio-3394.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ASHTABULA COUNTY

MARK K. POORMAN, CASE NO. 2026-A-0034

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Civil Appeal from the

- vs - Court of Common Pleas

RIKKI POORMAN,

Trial Court No. 2021 DR 00026

Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: August 31, 2026

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Charles A.J. Strader, Attorney Charles Strader, L.L.C., 175 Franklin Street, S.E., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Susan T. Seacrist, Seacrist Law, L.L.C., 7445 Center Street, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Defendant-Appellant).

SCOTT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} On May 4, 2026, appellant, Rikki Poorman, through counsel, filed an appeal

from an April 13, 2026 entry of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. This case

stemmed from a divorce action that appellee, Mark K. Poorman, filed against appellant.

After the divorce decree was issued, appellee filed a motion for contempt, and the

Magistrate issued a decision ruling on pending motions as well as the motion for contempt.

The Magistrate found appellant in contempt and recommended a sentence of 30-days in

jail and a $250 fine. The Magistrate further recommended that appellant be given the

opportunity to purge herself of the contempt. The trial court adopted the Magistrate’s Decision. The Magistrate issued an order finding appellant failed to satisfy the purge

conditions and set a sentencing hearing for a later date. In the April 13, 2026 judgment

entry, the trial court found that appellant failed to comply with the purge conditions,

overruled appellant’s motion to set aside the Magistrate’s Decision, and ordered that the

sentencing would take place on May 19, 2026. This appeal ensued.

{¶2} Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable

order. No response has been filed. Although we agree that this appeal should be

dismissed for lack of a final order, we do not agree with the reasons set forth in appellee’s

motion to dismiss. Hence, this appeal is dismissed for the following reasons.

{¶3} The judgment of a trial court is immediately appealable if it constitutes a

final order. Ohio Const., art. IV, § 3(B)(2). If a lower court’s judgment is not final, then an

appellate court has no jurisdiction, and the matter must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co.

v. Ins. of N. Am., 2014-Ohio-4254, ¶ 23. In the absence of other applicable authority

conferring jurisdiction, a lower court’s judgment must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 to be final and

appealable. Slabe v. Slabe, 2023-Ohio-4485, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.).

{¶4} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that “a court order finding a party in

contempt and imposing a sentence conditioned on the failure to purge is a final,

appealable order on the issue whether the party is in contempt of court” and an additional

appeal can be filed on whether the purge conditions have been met “following execution

of sentence on the failure to purge.” Docks Venture, L.L.C. v. Dashing Pacific Group,

Ltd., 141 Ohio St.3d 107, 112.

PAGE 2 OF 4

Case No. 2026-A-0034

{¶5} Furthermore, in general, an order that leaves issues unresolved and

contemplates further action is not a final appealable order. Dicello v. Dicello, 2025-Ohio5367, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.).

{¶6} In the case at hand, appellant did not appeal the initial finding of contempt

and imposition of the sentence conditioned upon the failure to purge. Instead, she is

appealing from the order finding that she failed to comply with the purge conditions.

However, there has been no execution of a sentence. The trial court simply scheduled

the matter for sentencing at a later date. Therefore, because the entry finding appellant

failed to purge the contempt did not execute a sentence, and the trial court intends to take

further action at a sentencing hearing to be scheduled at a later date, the entry on appeal

is not final and appealable.

{¶7} Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case No. 2026-A-0034

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that

appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a

final appealable order.

Furthermore, any pending motions are hereby overruled as moot.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,

concurs

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,

concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate

pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 4 OF 4

Case No. 2026-A-0034