In the decision, the appeals court said that civil contempt sanctions are based on “clear and convincing evidence” and are meant to either coerce the person being held in contempt to comply with court orders or compensate the complainant for their losses.
Alternatively, a criminal contempt sanction is meant to punish the person being held in contempt and needs proof that the person is violating court orders on purpose.
The case will be sent back to the trial court to give it a chance to decide whether it wants the contempt penalty to be civil or criminal in nature, and provide the appropriate reasoning.
The appeal stems from an August 2022 decision in the case of Miami Twp. Board of Trustees vs. Darren Powlette.
The case concerns a former “horse barn” at 7757 Upper Miamisburg Road owned by Powlette. The property is in an agricultural district, and when the barn was being built Powlette filed a form saying the barn would be used for growing and harvesting grapes and storing supplies, according to court documents.
However, Miami Township then discovered that Powlette was renting out the barn as a wedding venue, the documents said.
Further decisions in the Township Board of Zoning Appeals and Montgomery County Building Regulation Division, as well as appeals to the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court and Second Appellate District Court went in favor of the township, court documents said.
In December 2021, the common pleas court granted an injunction, forbidding Powlette from renting the barn for weddings or other events.
However, in May 2022 the Miami Twp. Board of Trustees filed a motion alleging that Powlette had continued to hold events at the barn.
Powlette argued that he had refunded the money for the wedding, telling the Dayton Daily News that the original ban “wasn’t ‘don’t have weddings,’ it was ‘don’t have them for a fee.’”
“So I wasn’t trying to get around anything,” he said. “I just gave them a free wedding.”
The court, however, did not seem to agree with Powlette’s reasoning, and in August 2022 found him in contempt for hosting celebratory events at the barn, specifically writing that Powlette “engaged in some type of ‘game playing’ with the specific intent to ‘get around’ the Court’s Order. Get around this: Sanction of Fifty Thousand Dollars payable within 30 days to Plaintiff.”
Powlette appealed this judgement, leading to the current decision.
About the Author
