# Arthur Young & Co. v. Kelly

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 28, 1990 · 68 Ohio App. 3d 287

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3748048

## Case

- **Full name:** Arthur Young & Company v. Kelly
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 28, 1990
- **Citations:** 68 Ohio App. 3d 287; 4 Ohio App. Unrep. 430; 588 N.E.2d 233; 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2636
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pepple
- **Judges:** Reilly, Bryant, Pepple, County, Pleas, Tenth
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3748048

## Opinion text

PEPPLE, J.,
dissenting in part; concurring in judgment.
I disagree with only one aspect of the foregoing opinion.
Concerning the fourth assignment of error, I would hold that since a trial court has the authority to award monetary damages and attorney fees as one means to coerce the contemnor into complying with the decree pending litigation, the trial court,
in addition
to the statutory authority of R.C. 2727.12, has the inherent authority to order the collection or security for payment of such a restitutionary award.
Absent such authority, the majority's conclusions that "[cloercion can be accomplished by a restitutionary award" which is "reasonably tailored to accomplish compliance with the decree" would become an empty threat. The trial court must be given wide discretion in exercising its authority to enforce such a remedial award, including requiring payment or security for payment, or other collection methods.
If the purpose of the remedial award at the time of preliminary injunction is coercion, where is the coercive pressure if the trial court has no authority to immediately enforce the award or provide for its eventual enforcement through requiring security for payment? I believe the trial court acted within its inherent authority, beyond the statutory authority, in requiring the bond.
Accordingly, I would have overruled the fourth assignment of error.
I concur in the judgment and in the remaining portions of the opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3748048. Public record. Not legal advice.