1

LARKE BROWN’S DIVORCE FROM SEN. BROWN

CONTENTS KEY POINTS 1

TIMELINE 2

RESEARCH 3

Beginning Of Divorce 3

Restraining Order 3

Affidavit Of Harassment 5

Accused Of Failing To Pay Child Support 7

Custody Affidavits 9

Divorce Granted 23

First Police Report 24

Second Police Report 24

File To Reduce Child Support 25

Larke’s New Husband’s Concerns 27

KEY POINTS

• Sherrod Brown’s first wife, Larke, filed for divorce from him because of neglect and extreme

cruelty.

• Larke also had to file for a restraining order because of Sherrod’s violent and abusive nature.

• After an incident in her home where Sherrod shoved Larke against a wall with his arm to get

into her home, Larke filed an affidavit to describe another incident where he harassed her in

her home, with her guests present to watch.

• While all of this was happening, Sherrod was accused of refusing to pay child support and

even tried at one to point to lessen the amount he had to pay.

o After losing his Secretary of State re-election in 1990, Sherrod filed to reduce his

child support payments.

• In custody affidavits in favor of Larke, Sherrod was described as an “absentee father”

2

• Shortly after the divorce was finalized and Larke had moved on and married someone else,

Sherrod physically attacked her new husband by grabbing him around the neck and

strangling him. Larke and her new husband filed a police report.

• A couple years after that altercation, Sherrod came back two years later and beat on Larke’s

door so hard and forceful that it broke. Larke had to file with the court to have Sherrod

stand on the curb when coming to pick the children up for visitation.

• Larke’s new husband accused Sherrod of shoving Larke on several different occasions. He

also said he was afraid that Sherrod would hurt her.

TIMELINE

May 1986 Larke Brown files for divorce from Sherrod Brown, citing neglect and extreme cruelty.

May 12, 1986 Larke filed for a restraining order against Sherrod, citing his “physical violence and abusive nature.”

June 1986 Ten women filed affidavits in favor of Larke getting custody of the children. Sherrod was depicted as an “absentee father.”

August 1986 Larke filed a motion to find Brown in contempt for failure to pay child support.

October 1986 Larke filed an affidavit that described further an incident at her home where Brown harassed her publicly. Sherrod’s spokesperson tried to downplay this incident.

1987 The divorce was granted.

April 1987 Larke filed a police report against Sherrod when he attacked her new husband by grabbing his neck and beginning to strangle him.

1986-1989 Larke repeatedly accused Sherrod of failing to pay child support, then challenged his motion to reduce his payments.

Beginning of 1989 Larke filed a police report against Sherrod for beating on the door so hard that it broke.

April 1989 Sherrod failed to pay $150.00 of medical bills and his lawyer responded and said that he would pay the bill within 30 days.

3

May 1991 Larke challenged Sherrod’s motion to pay less child support. This was after he lost his 1990 Secretary of State re-election.

RESEARCH

Beginning Of Divorce

In May 1986, Larke Brown Filed For Divorce, Saying In The Complaint That Sherrod Brown

“Has Been Guilty Of Gross Neglect Of Duty And Extreme Cruelty.” “Records from the 1986

divorce in Franklin County Common Pleas Court show a searing level of vitriol between Sherrod

Brown (named in the court filing as ‘S. Campbell Brown’) and his then-wife of seven years. She filed

the case in May that year, saying in the complaint that Brown ‘has been guilty of gross neglect of

duty and extreme cruelty’ toward her. She also got a restraining order to keep him from harassing or

annoying her and from ‘doing bodily harm.’ In a supporting affidavit, she said she was ‘in fear for

the safety and well-being of myself and our children due to (Brown's) physical violence and abusive

nature.’” (Stephen Koff, “The Old Divorce Claims: A 'Despicable' Attack From Josh Mandel, Or Fair Game Against Sherrod Brown?,” The

Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/22/12)

• In Ohio, “Gross Neglect Of Duty” Is Defined As A “Willful Failure To Perform A

Marital Obligation,” Such As Mutual Respect, Fidelity Or Support. “In the context of

divorce law, gross neglect refers to a willful failure to perform a marital obligation. Gross

neglect of duty refers to an omission of a legal duty. Precise definitions vary by state. For

example, under Ohio law, a husband and wife owe each other obligations of mutual respect,

fidelity, and support. Case law has interpreted the term to include, among others, a

substantial failure to provide financial support when able to do so, failing to support each

other in a time of great emotional distress caused by the death of their child, and lack of

sexual relations accompanied by other aggravating factors. However, the term gross neglect

of duty is incapable of any concrete definition which can be applied to all cases. Its

application depends upon the circumstances of the particular case.” (“Gross Neglect Law and Legal

Definition,” USLegal, Accessed 11/30/17)

• In Ohio, “Extreme Cruelty” Includes Adultery Or Emotional Abuse. “For example,

‘extreme cruelty’ could be adultery or emotional abuse, both within the guidelines of extreme

cruelty in Ohio.” (Jennifer Joseph, ““Extreme Cruelty” as a Ground for Divorce,” Joseph and Joseph, 3/25/16)

Restraining Order

On May 12, 1986, Larke Filed For A Restraining Order Against Brown, Citing Fear For The

“Safety And Well-Being” Of Herself And Their Children Due To Brown’s “Physical

Violence And Abusive Nature.” “Larke had sought a restraining order against her husband. ‘I am

also intimidated by the Defendant,’ her affidavit said, ‘and am in fear for the safety and well-being of

myself and our children due to the Defendant's physical violence and abusive nature.’ Brown

answered that he had never been abusive toward his wife and daughters.” (David W. Martin, “Don't Mess With

Sherrod,” Cleveland Scene, 8/30/01)

4

(Larke U. Brown V. S C Brown, Motion And Affidavit, Court Of Common Pleas Of Franklin County, Ohio, Division Of Domestic Relations,

Case No. 86DR-04-1498, 5/12/86)

On October 11, 1986, Larke Said Brown Shoved Her Against A Wall With His Arm As A Way

To Enter Her Residence. “In that affidavit, she described an incident on Oct. 11, 1986, in which

Brown arrived at her home to pick up his daughters but refused to wait for her to bring the girls out.

He ‘pushed me up against the wall with his arms in order to pass and enter the house,’ the affidavit

said. ‘He refused to leave when asked and began to say insulting, derogatory things about me, my

mothering of my children and my character in front of my friends and children.’” (Stephen Koff, “The Old

Divorce Claims: A 'Despicable' Attack From Josh Mandel, Or Fair Game Against Sherrod Brown?,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/22/12)\

• Larke Also Said That She Was “Definitely Afraid” Of Brown And He Had

“Destroyed [Her] Peace Of Mind.” “She [Larke] Concluded By Saying That ‘I Am

Definitely Afraid Of My Husband, That He Has Struck And Bullied Me On Several

Different Occasions, He Has Completely Destroyed My Peace Of Mind And That I Am

Extremely Intimidated By Him.” (Stephen Koff, “The Old Divorce Claims: A 'Despicable' Attack From Josh Mandel, Or

Fair Game Against Sherrod Brown?,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/22/12)

5

(Larke U. Brown V. S C Brown, Affidavit, Court Of Common Pleas Of Franklin County, Ohio, Division Of Domestic Relations, Case No. 86DR-04-

1498, 10/27/86)

(Larke U. Brown V. S C Brown, Affidavit, Court Of Common Pleas Of Franklin County, Ohio, Division Of Domestic Relations, Case No.

86DR-04-1498, 10/27/86)

(Larke U. Brown V. S C Brown, Affidavit, Court Of Common Pleas Of Franklin County, Ohio, Division Of Domestic Relations, Case No.

86DR-04-1498, 10/27/86)

Affidavit Of Harassment

In October 1986, Larke Filed An Affidavit That Described An Incident At Her Home Where

Brown Harassed Her In Front Of Guests Art Her Home. “In the affidavit, Larke accused

6

Brown of assaulting her while she was entertaining guests and sticking around for fifteen minutes to

harass her in front of the guests.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Affidavit Of Larke Ummel

Brown, Filed 10/16/86)

Note: This Appears To Be After The Incident Where Sherrod Shoved Larke Against A Wall With His Arm.

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Affidavit Of Larke Ummel Brown, Filed 10/16/86)

7

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Affidavit Of Larke Ummel Brown, Filed 10/16/86)

Accused Of Failing To Pay Child Support

In May 1986, Larke Stated That She Had Been Paying Mortgage, Tax, Insurance, Utility,

And School Bills For Five Months Without Sufficient Support From Brown. “Affiant further

states that since the parties’ separation in January, 1986, Defendant has been paying the mortgage,

taxes, insurance and utilities incident to the residence, car insurance, piano lessons and school

expenses. However, payment of these expenses by Defendant has been insufficient to meet

Plaintiff’s minimal [sic] with the parties’ two children and I have been forced to borrow the sum of

$500.00 from my parents, Clark and Carolyn Ummel to supplement my [sic].” (Franklin County Court Of

Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Affidavit Of Larke Ummel Brown, Filed 5/12/86)

• Larke Stated That She Had To Borrow $500 From Her Parents To Pay The Bills.

“Affiant further states that since the parties’ separation in January, 1986, Defendant has been

paying the mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities incident to the residence, car insurance,

piano lessons and school expenses. However, payment of these expenses by Defendant has

been insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s minimal [sic] with the parties’ two children and I have

been forced to borrow the sum of $500.00 from my parents, Clark and Carolyn Ummel to

supplement my [sic].” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Affidavit Of Larke Ummel Brown,

Filed 5/12/86)

In August 1986, Larke Filed A Motion To Find Brown In Contempt For Failure To Pay

Child Support Obligations. (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Motion In Contempt, Filed

8/11/86)

8

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Motion In Contempt, Filed 8/11/86)

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Motion In Contempt, Filed 8/11/86)

In April 1989, Larke Accused Brown Of Failing To Pay $150 In Medical Expenses. Brown’s

Lawyer Responded By Stating That Brown Would Pay The Expenses Within 30 Days.

“Accusations of assault and destruction of property have been made against Secretary of State

Sherrod Brown by his ex-wife. ‘I have done nothing wrong,’ Brown, 36, said in a telephone

interview yesterday. He and Larke Recchie, 35, were divorced in January 1987 after a 7 1/2-year

9

marriage. Mrs. Recchie has custody of their two daughters, Emily, 8, and Elizabeth, 5. Mrs. Recchie

married lawyer Joseph Recchie, 34, in May 1987. On March 30, Mrs. Recchie filed contempt charges

against Brown. She said he failed on four occasions to abide by a custody agreement stipulating that

he remain at the curb and off her property when picking up his daughters for visitations. She also

said he failed to pay certain medical expenses. The amount of the medical bills was not included in

the document, but sources said it is about $150. Brown’s attorney, Randy S. Kurek, said at a hearing

in Franklin County Domestic Relations Court yesterday that proof of the expenses has been

furnished by Mrs. Recchie and that Brown would pay within 30 days. Also at the hearing, the parties

adopted an agreement increasing Brown’s child support payments.” (Rosemary Kubera, “Secretary Of State Accused

By Ex-Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

Custody Affidavits

In June 1986, Ten Women Filed Affidavits In Support Of Larke Gaining Custody Of The

Children And Some Of The Women Described Sherrod As An Absent Father. CAROL

UMMEL LINDQUIST: “Affiant further states that as a result of my observations I would like to

comment on the Plaintiffs parenting skills [sic] will not comment on S. Campbell Brown’s parenting

as during the majority of time I have spent with the Brown family, Mr. Brown has been absent.

However, when he was present I have not observed him in the role of primary care giver.”

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Carol Ummel Lindquist, Filed 5/27/86)

10

11

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Carol Ummel Lindquist, Filed 5/27/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Social Worker Elizabeth Leshner, Stated That She Had Known

Larke For 15 Years And Believed She Was The Primary Parent To The Children

Leshner Stated That Larke Brown Had Been The Primary Parent To The Children And

Recommended The Court Grant Her Custody. “Affiant further states that in my opinion, Larke

Brown is devoted, caring, loving, concerned, an interested and involved parent and is highly

qualified to be a custodial parent as anyone I have had the opportunity to have known. Affiant

further states that in my opinion, Larke Brown has been the primary parent in the life of the children

and that this Court should vest the care, custody and control of her minor children with the

Plaintiff.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Elizabeth Leshner, Filed 6/10/86)

12

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Elizabeth Leshner, Filed 6/10/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Larke’s Neighbor, Ramona Whisler, Stated That Brown Was

Absent And Inattentive

Whisler Stated That Larke Carried The Major Burden Of Child Rearing, And Sherrod

Brown Was Frequently Out Of Town. “Affiant further states that during this period of time, I

have noticed that Larke Brown has carried the major burden for the rearing of the Brown children.

Affiant further states that this is because Mr. Brown has been frequently out of town and involved

in work related activity Affiant further states that I have especially notices that he has been gone

13

over night anywhere from one (1) to four (4) nights nearly every week.” (Franklin County Court Of Common

Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Ramona Whisler, Filed 5/19/86)

• Whisler Stated That When She Observed Brown With His Children He Was Not Attentive, And Did Not Notice When His Eighteen Month Old Daughter Was Walking Into The Street. “Affiant further states that during the times I did observe Mr. Brown watching his two (2) children by himself, he was not very attentive. Affiants states that one (1) time he was sitting in a lawn chair reading a book while the girls were running in different directions in the yard. Affiant further states that Mr. Brown appeared to be oblivious to what they were doing. Another time he was standing in the front yard talking to another person who had just pulled up in the care while his two (2) children were running in the front yard. I yelled to him because his youngest daughter, Elizabeth, then approximately eighteen (18) months old, was starting to walk into the street. He only nodded his head and said “sure you can take them” I guess that he presumed that I wanted to have them come over. I finally got it across to him what Elizabeth was about to do.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Ramona Whisler, Filed

5/19/86)

14

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Ramona Whisler, Filed 5/19/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Larke’s Neighbor, Linda Osborn, Stated That Larke Was The

Primary Parent Of The Children

Osborn Stated That Larke Had Been The Primary Person In The Lives Of The Children

And Recommended The Court Grant Her Custody. “Affiant further states that from my

observations of the Plaintiff that she has been a very caring and loving mother. The children are

15

always neat and clean and they are well taken care of. Affiant further states that she not only devotes

all of her time at home with her children and the time spent with them is quality time. Affiant

further states that in her opinion the Plaintiff has been the primary person in the lives of the

children to this point and that she would recommend that this Court grant the temporary care,

custody, and control of the parties minor children to the Plaintiff.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case

86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Linda Osborn, Filed 6/10/86)

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Linda Osborn, Filed 6/10/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Social Worker Barbara Poplis, Who Had Known Larke For 10

Years, Praised Her Character And Parenting Skills

Poplis Said Larke “Assumed Her Responsibilities As Mother With Great Love And Vitality.”

“During my observations of the Plaintiff and her children, Larke has assumed her responsibilities as

mother with great love and vitality. I believe that the happiness and well being of her daughters are

the most important factors in her life. I state this because as an intelligent, educated and articulate

woman, Larke would be an asset to any professional enterprise. However, she has chosen to forego

the opportunities associated with full-time employment and opted instead for part-time work so that

she can be at home with her daughters.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of

Barbara Poplis, Filed 6/10/86)

• POPLIS: “Affiant Further States That [Sic] As Certain That Should This Court Vest Larke With The Care, Custody And Control Of Her Minor Daughters, That She Will

16

Provide Them With The Best Possible Environment, Love And Attention And Become Very Responsible And Caring Adults.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody

Affidavit Of Barbara Poplis, Filed 6/10/86)

17

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Barbara Poplis, Filed 6/10/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Darlene Murphy, Who Had Known Larke For Seven Years, Said

She Viewed Her As The Primary Parent

Murphy Stated That From Her Observations She Considered Larke Brown The Primary

Parent Of The Children. “Affiant states that during the period of time I have known Larke Brown

I have known her to be hard working, dedicated, even tempered, fair and committed to doing her

best at all times. As a friend, I have found her to be honest, open minded, trustworthy and caring.

As a mother, I have found her to be extremely capable, loving, concerned and dedicated. Affiant

further states that from my personal observations, Mrs. Brown has been the primary parent in the

lives of the parties minor children.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Darlene

Murphy, Filed 5/17/86)

Murphy Called Larke Brown “Hard working, Dedicated, Even Tempered, Fair And

Committed.” “Affiant states that during the period of time I have known Larke Brown I have

known her to be hard working, dedicated, even tempered, fair and committed to doing her best at all

times. As a friend, I have found her to be honest, open minded, trustworthy and caring. As a

mother, I have found her to be extremely capable, loving, concerned and dedicated. Affiant further

states that from my personal observations, Mrs. Brown has been the primary parent in the lives of

18

the parties minor children.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Darlene Murphy,

Filed 5/17/86)

Murphy Recommended The Court Grant Larke Brown Custody Of The Children. “Affiant

further states that I can without reservation [sic] that Larke Brown is a loving, caring and responsible

mother who will enable her children to develop their potential to their fullest extent and lead happy

and fulfilling lives. I recommend that this Court vest the care, custody and control of the Brown

children with the Plaintiff.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Darlene Murphy,

Filed 5/17/86)

19

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Darlene Murphy, Filed 5/17/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Church Volunteer Deborah Huddleston Stated That She Viewed

Her As The Primary Caretaker Of The Children

Huddleston Said That In Her Opinion Larke Was The Primary Caretaker Of The Children,

And She Would Have No Reservations With The Court Granting Larke With The Care And

Custody Of The Children. “Affiant further states that through our activities together and my

personal interactions with the Plaintiff, I have had many opportunities to observe Larke Brown with

her children, see the love and happiness that they share together. From my observations of the

Plaintiff, it is my opinion that she is the primary caretaker for the Browns two (2) minor children,

Emily and Elizabeth. Affiant further states that I would have no reservation in this Court granting

Larke with the care, custody and accommodation of her minor daughters, Emily and Elizabeth.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Deborah Huddleston, Filed 5/26/86)

20

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Deborah Huddleston, Filed 5/26/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Adrienne Corbett Praised Larke’s Parenting, And Recommended

She Receive Custody

21

Corbett Said She Considers Larke Brown A Role Model And Would Not Hesitate To

Recommend The Court Give Her Custody. “Affiant further states that Larke has provided for

the children’s physical, emotional and educational needs and that our children share the same child

care provider when we cannot be with them during the day. Affiant further states that I have

observed first hand that Emily and Elizabeth Brown are lovely and well adjusted children. In

conclusion. I can only state that I consider Larke Brown as a role model for myself. I do not hesitate

in recommending this Court vest her with the care, custody and control of her minor children,

Emily and Elizabeth Brown.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Adrienne

Corbett, Filed 5/21/86)

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Adrienne Corbett, Filed 5/21/86)

The Custody Affidavit Of Larke’s Neighbor, Mrs. Gerald Rosenberg, Praised Larke’s

Parental Competence

Rosenberg Praised Larke Brown’s “Parental Competence” And Recommending The Court

Grant Her Custody. “Affiant further states that Emily and Elizabeth Brown play with my two (2)

children frequently and I feel that they are an attribute and testimony to Mrs. Brown’s parental

22

competence. Both children are exceptionally bright and well adjusted girls and they are a joy to be

around. In conclusion, I feel compelled to write whatever tribunal to confirm the competence of

Larke Brown as a loving and caring parent. I have no reservations and am recommending this Court

vest her with the care, custody and control of her two minor children, Emily and Elizabeth Brown.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Mrs. Gerald Rosenberg, Filed 6/10/86)

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Mrs. Gerald Rosenberg, Filed 6/10/86)

Custody Affidavit Of Elizabeth Hawthorne, Who Had Known Larke For Three Years, Stated

That Larke Was A Conscientious And Attentive Parent

Hawthorne Said Larke Brown Was Particularly Attentive To Her Children’s Educational

And Developmental Needs. “Affiant further states that the Plaintiff spends a lot of time with her

children and has already seemed to enhance their educational needs. She takes her children to the

library, has enrolled Emily in pre-school and looks to expand the children’s horizons. Affiant further

states Plaintiff and I have had frequent conversations about quality [sic] and environment in which is

most conducive to emotional, social, and intellectual growth for children.” (Franklin County Court Of Common

Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Elizabeth Hawthorne, Filed 6/10/86)

Hawthorne Recommended The Court Grant Larke Brown Custody Of The Children

“Because She Has Been The Very Best Parent For Them.” “Affiant further states that I would

encourage this Court to grant the Plaintiff the care, custody and control of Emily and Elizabeth

because she has been the very best parent for them in the past and will continue to be so in the

future.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Custody Affidavit Of Elizabeth Hawthorne, Filed 6/10/86)

23

Divorce Granted

In 1987, A Divorce Was Granted And Both Parties Were Found At Fault. (David W. Martin, “Don't Mess

With Sherrod,” Cleveland Scene, 8/30/01)

24

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Decree Of Divorce, Filed 1/8/87)

First Police Report

In April 1987, Brown Was Accused Of Assaulting His Ex-Wife’s New Husband By

“Grabbing Him Around The Neck And Beginning To Strangle Him.” “The Dispatch story

also said that Brown assaulted his ex-wife's new husband, Joseph Recchie, grabbing him around

the neck and beginning to strangle him. Joseph Recchie filed a complaint but did not follow up

with formal charges, the Dispatch reported.” (Stephen Koff, “The Old Divorce Claims: A 'Despicable' Attack From Josh

Mandel, Or Fair Game Against Sherrod Brown?,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/22/12)

On April 16, 1987, Mr. Recchie Filed A Complaint Against Brown, But “[He] Did Not

File Formal Charges Against Brown, Saying He Preferred The Approach Of Trying ‘To

Encourage Sherrod To Act Appropriately.’” “Unrest between the Recchies and Brown has

existed since Mrs. Recchie and Brown separated in January 1986, Mr. Recchie said. On April 16,

1987, Mr. Recchie filed a complaint against Brown, saying he grabbed him around the neck,

began to strangle him and made threats. Mr. Recchie did not file formal charges against Brown,

saying he preferred the approach of trying ‘to encourage Sherrod to act appropriately.’ Brown

said he did not attempt to hurt or threaten Mr. Recchie.” (Rosemary Kubera, “Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-

Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

Second Police Report

In 1989, “Brown's Ex-Wife Accused Him Of Malicious Destruction Of Property And

Filed A Police Report Saying Brown Broke The Door After Pounding On It.” “The

acrimony did not end with the divorce decree. According to a Columbus Dispatch story from

April 1989, when Brown was Ohio secretary of state, Brown's ex-wife accused him of malicious

destruction of property and filed a police report saying Brown broke the door after pounding on

it. She did not follow up with charges.” (Stephen Koff, “The Old Divorce Claims: A 'Despicable' Attack From Josh Mandel,

Or Fair Game Against Sherrod Brown?,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/22/12)

• On March 30, 1989, Brown’s Ex-Wife Filed Contempt Charges Against Him Saying

“He Failed On Four Occasions To Abide By A Custody Agreement Stipulating

That He Remain At The Curb And Off Her Property When Picking Up His

Daughters For Visitations.” “On March 30, Mrs. Recchie filed contempt charges

against Brown. She said he failed on four occasions to abide by a custody agreement

stipulating that he remain at the curb and off her property when picking up his daughters

for visitations.” (Rosemary Kubera, “Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

25

• Brown’s Ex-Wife “Said That Brown, When Picking Up His Older Daughter At

Her Former Home On E. Broad Street, Pounded On The Door And Broke It.”

“Mrs. Recchie refused comment, but Mr. Recchie said she will present witnesses to back

up her claims against Brown. In her motion, Mrs. Recchie accused Brown of malicious

destruction of property on one of the days she said he did not remain at the curb. She

filed a police report Dec. 7 but did not bring charges against Brown. In the report, Mrs.

Recchie said that Brown, when picking up his older daughter at her former home on E.

Broad Street, pounded on the door and broke it. In an interview, Brown said he went to

the door after waiting in vain for his daughter to appear. He said he pounded loudly but

did not break the door.” (Rosemary Kubera, “Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

File To Reduce Child Support

In 1991, A Divorce Referee’s Report Showed That Brown Wanted To Reduce His Child

Support Payments After He Lost His Secretary Of State Re-Election. (Franklin County Court Of Common

Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Report Of The Referee, Filed 8/2/91)

In May 1991, Larke Responded To Brown’s Motion To Reduce His Child Support

Obligations By Filing A Motion To Require Him To Increase His Obligations. (Franklin County

Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Motion, Filed 5/28/91)

Note: Brown’s Original Motion Was Not In The Divorce Case File.

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Motion, Filed 5/28/91)

26

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Motion, Filed 5/28/91)

In 1991, Brown Requested His Child Support Be Reduced From $115 Per Child Per Week To

$60 Per Child Per Week While His Business Was Forming. “Due to his current circumstances,

and the developing nature of his business, Defendant suggests that his child support obligations

should be reduced to $60.00 per week per child for the second half of 1991, moving to $80.00 per

week per child for the second half of 1991, increasing to $100 per week per child for the first half of

1992 and then return to $115.00 per week per child at mid-year 1992, and upward from there as his

business grows.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Report Of The Referee, Filed 8/2/91)

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Report Of The Referee, Filed 8/2/91)

Larke Countered With The Charge That Brown Was “Voluntarily Underemployed” And

That His Child Support Obligations Should Be Based On Potential, Not Actual, Income.

“Plaintiff Offered the testimony of an expert in an effort to establish that Defendant is voluntarily

underemployed and that child support obligations should be based on his potential income rather

than his actual earnings.” (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Report Of The Referee, Filed 8/2/91)

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Report Of The Referee, Filed 8/2/91)

In August 1991, The Referee Supported Brown’s Motion To Reduce His Child Support

Obligations. (Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Report Of The Referee, Filed 8/2/91)

27

(Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas, Case 86DR-05-1498, Report Of The Referee, Filed 8/2/91)

Larke’s New Husband’s Concerns

Larke’s New Husband Accused Brown Of Shoving Her On Several Occasions And Said

He Feared Brown Would Harm Her

“Also Pending Is A Decision On A Recent Motion By Brown That The Recchies Bring

The Children To Columbus For Visits With Him, Since The Couple Recently Moved To

Granville And It Is ‘Burdensome’ For Brown To Pick Them Up There.” (Rosemary Kubera,

“Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

• “Mr. Recchie Said In An Interview That He Fears Brown Would Harm His Wife If She Brought Her Children To Him In Columbus. The Case Has Been Continued, But A Hearing Date Has Not Been Set.” (Rosemary Kubera, “Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-Wife,” The

Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

“Mr. Recchie Accused Brown Of Shoving Mrs. Recchie On Numerous Occasions And Of

Shouting Obscenities In Person And On The Telephone.” “Mr. Recchie said an unrecorded

understanding with Brown was reached through the mediation of the Franklin County

prosecutor's office, and that Brown reaffirmed his agreement to remain at the curb when picking

up his children. Brown said Mr. Recchie failed to show for a meeting with prosecutors and that

no understanding was reached. Mr. Recchie accused Brown of shoving Mrs. Recchie on

numerous occasions and of shouting obscenities in person and on the telephone.” (Rosemary Kubera,

“Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

“‘I Have Done Nothing Wrong,’ Brown, 36, Said In A Telephone Interview Yesterday.” (Rosemary Kubera, “Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)

• “‘I've Never Hurt Her. I've Never Touched Her. I Never Harassed Her On The Phone,’ Brown Said.” (Rosemary Kubera, “Secretary Of State Accused By Ex-Wife,” The Columbus Dispatch, 4/8/89)