We are pleased to announce that Durst Kerridge has secured another appellate victory in Crum-Cianflone v. Cianflone, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2025 CA 0037, 2026-Ohio-663.
Paul R. Kerridge was lead appellate counsel. Paul now devotes the majority of his practice to appellate work. In the past year, Paul has argued in the Ohio Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal for Ohio’s First, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth District.
The Case
The case involved a high-dollar-value spousal support dispute between a physician and her former husband. The parties divorced in California and entered into a marital settlement agreement requiring the wife to pay $4,500 per month in spousal support, plus 18.5% of any “bonus” she received from her employment.
After both parties relocated to Ohio, the husband filed motions for contempt, alleging that his former wife had failed to pay him the required percentage of her bonuses.
The crux of the dispute was whether certain performance-based compensation the wife received through her employer’s Relative Value Unit (“RVU”) system constituted a “bonus” within the meaning of the settlement agreement. The wife contended her RVU payments were simply part of her base pay, not bonuses. The trial court agreed with the wife and denied the husband’s contempt motions.
With up to approximately $1,000,000 in additional spousal support at stake, our client retained Durst Kerridge to appeal the decision to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
The Fifth District’s Decision
This appeal presented a complex question of contract interpretation. Because the settlement agreement contained a California choice-of-law provision, the appellate court applied California substantive law.
After evaluating the language of both the settlement agreement and the wife’s employment contract, along with relevant extrinsic evidence, the Fifth District ruled in our client’s favor. The court found that the employment contract was unambiguous: the wife’s compensation structure included a guaranteed base salary and additional payments calculated through the RVU system, which the contract itself labeled “estimated bonus payments.” The court rejected the wife’s characterization of these payments as mere base pay, noting that her employer’s own vice president testified that the use of the word “bonus” in the contract was “arbitrary.” The court found this testimony disingenuous—particularly in light of a subsequent contract renewal that changed the language from “estimated bonus payments” to “estimated productivity payments,” which the court viewed as a telling concession.
The Fifth District vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to (1) determine whether the wife should be held in contempt for willfully failing to pay the required percentage of her bonuses, (2) calculate the amount of back spousal support owed to our client, and (3) assess all costs to the wife.
What This Means for Our Client
This is a significant victory. Our client is now entitled to 18.5% of the RVU-based compensation his former wife has received—and will continue to receive—over the duration of the spousal support obligation. In addition, the trial court must now determine whether his former wife’s failure to pay constituted willful contempt, which could result in additional sanctions and an award of attorney fees.
About Durst Kerridge
Durst Kerridge has a proven track record of winning significant appeals. Our Appellate Practice is led by Paul R. Kerridge, who previously served as a Law Clerk to Justice Patrick F. Fischer of the Supreme Court of Ohio and Judge Chad A. Readler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. We have achieved appellate victory at the highest levels, including wins that reversed multimillion-dollar judgments and secured favorable outcomes for our clients in complex commercial and civil litigation matters.
To contact Durst Kerridge, call (513) 621-4999 or reach out to Alex J. Durst or Paul R. Kerridge directly.
