COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69522 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CAROL A. PISANI : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION : GLENN PISANI : PER CURIAM : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT MARCH 14, 1996 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Domestic Relations Division of Common Pleas Court Case No. D-219910 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: CAROL PISANI, Pro Se RICHARD KOBLENTZ, ESQ. 30 Commons Court 75 Public Square, Ste. 1025 Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Guardian Ad Litem: WILLIAM J. HEINE, ESQ. PATRICK F. ROSATI, ESQ. 950 Standard Building 27801 Euclid Avenue 1370 Ontario Street Suite 500 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Euclid, Ohio 44132 -3- PER CURIAM: In this accelerated appeal, Carol Pisani, plaintiff-appellant, challenges a decision from the trial court finding that attorneys Richard Koblentz, William Heine, and Patrick Rosati were not in contempt of a court order. Carol Pisani, pro se, assigns the following two errors for our review: I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY STATING THAT KOBLENTZ, HEINE AND ROSATI PURGED THEMSELVES FROM CONTEMPT BY GIVING CAROL PISANI A WITHDRAWAL SLIP THAT THEY MANIPULATED TO NOT DELIVER CAROL PISANI THE MONEY ORDERED TO HER FROM CUYAHOGA COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT JOURNAL ENTRY. KOBLENTZ, HEINE AND ROSATI WERE IN CONTEMPT ON OCTOBER 12, 1994 AND ARE STILL IN CONTEMPT BECAUSE THE COURT ORDER HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. THE TRIAL COURT ERROR WAS THAT HEINE'S TESTIMONY, WHICH IS INCLUDED, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HEINE ACTED MALICIOUSLY TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER AND TO BENEFIT HIMSELF. II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY IGNORING WHAT THE FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF ESCROW AGENTS, WHICH IS COGNIZABLE UNDER OHIO LAW, AND SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT, "ESCROW" IS A SPECIAL STATUS. THE FACTS ARE CLEAR THAT KOBLENTZ, HEINE AND ROSATI CLEARLY BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY AS ESCROW AGENTS, THIS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL. Having reviewed the record of the proceedings and the legal arguments presented by the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. On July 11, 1993, while undergoing a divorce, Carol and Glenn Pisani agreed to establish an escrow account for some of the proceeds from the sale of their marital home. The account was to be held in the names of F. Patrick Rosati (Carol Pisani's -4- attorney), Richard Koblentz (Glen Pisani's attorney), and William Heine (guardian ad litem). The agreement provided that the money would not be disbursed until "either the domestic relations action is settled or the domestic relations court enters a judgment which will direct the disbursal of the funds." Any expenditures from the account required the signatures of all three men. On October 5, 1994, the trial court ordered the following payments to be made from the parties' escrow account: $57,861.00 To Carol Pisani $31,835.00 To Glen Pisani $ 9,700.00 To William Heine $ 1,125.00 To Dr. Sandra McPherson $ 2,006.00 Dr. Yael Crawford The court also ordered Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati to "execute and sign all documents necessary to make the above payments from the Huntington Bank escrow account within seven (7) days of the journalization of this Order." On October 19, 1994, Carol Pisani's trial counsel was notified that a withdrawal slip necessary to withdraw the funds had been signed by Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati. The withdrawal slip was picked up the following day. However, the bank refused to release the funds to Carol Pisani because of a voluntary lien which Pisani had placed on the account and two other attachments to the account. On February 6, 1995, Carol Pisani filed a Motion to Show Cause alleging Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court's order. On September 5, 1995, -5- after a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati "had complied with the Court's order and had purged themselves of any contempt" when they turned over the signed withdrawal slip to Carol Pisani's trial counsel. This appeal followed. In her first assignment of error, Carol Pisani asserts the trial court erred in finding that Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati had purged their contempt by giving her a withdrawal slip. Pisani argues the three attorneys were in contempt because she never received the money awarded to her under the court's order. R.C. 2705.02 provides "a person may be held in contempt for disobedience of or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court or an officer." In this case, the trial court ordered the attorneys to "sign all documents necessary" to make the payments ordered by the court within 7 days from October 5, 1994. On October 12, 1994, the withdrawal slip had still not been signed. However, it was signed and given to Carol Pisani's lawyer by October 19, 1994. Carol Pisani did not file her Motion to Show Cause until February 6, 1995. At the time Pisani's motion was filed, Koblentz, Heine and Rosati had already complied with the court's order by signing the withdrawal slip and turning it over to Pisani. Pisani's inability to obtain the money from the escrow account upon presentation of the withdrawal slip was due to a lien and two attachments that had been placed on the escrow account. The court's order only required Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati to sign the -6- documents necessary to make the payments as directed in the order. Whether a particular contempt is criminal or civil in nature depends upon the character and purpose of the contempt sanction. Brown v. Executive 200, Inc. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 250,253-254. A civil contempt is remedial or coercive in nature with an intent to force the contemnor to comply with the court's order. Sanctions imposed for a civil contempt are for the benefit of the complainant. Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Com'rs. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 14,16; Tucker v. Tucker (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 251,252. Dandino v. Finkbeiner (October 27, 1995), Lucas App. No. 95-030, unreported at 6. Once Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati signed the withdrawal slip as ordered, they complied with the court's order and were no longer subject to a finding of contempt. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati had purged themselves of any contempt. We also reject Pisani's argument that Koblentz, Heine and Rosati breached a fiduciary duty with respect to the escrow account. Escrow has been defined as "a matter of agreement between parties, usually evidenced by a writing placed with a third-party depositary providing certain terms and conditions the parties intend to be fulfilled prior to the termination of the escrow." Spalding v. Coulson (May 11, 1995), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 64962,65185,66457, unreported at 11 (citing Pippin v. Kern-Ward Bldg. Co. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 196,198). The escrow agent's duty is to carry out the parties' intent as expressed in the escrow agreement. Id. -7- In this case, Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati did not breach their fiduciary duties as escrow agents. The escrow agreement specified that the money would be held in escrow until either the domestic relations action is settled or the domestic relations court enters a judgment directing the disbursal of the funds. The court's order of October 5, 1994 ordered the disbursal of the escrow funds. Koblentz, Heine, and Rosati complied with the court's order to sign the withdrawal slip that would authorize the bank to release the funds. The evidence reveals that the bank declined to release the funds, not because of a lack of proper authorization, but because of the liens and attachments on Pisani's account. Absent any evidence that Koblentz, Heine and Rosati breached a fiduciary duty owed to Pisani, we overrule her second assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. -8- It is ordered that Appellee recover of Appellant his costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Domestic Relations Division of Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. LEO SPELLACY, PRESIDING JUDGE PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- .