.webp)
.png)
Contempt of court is a concept that many people have heard of, but few truly understand. Most people understand, for instance, that being held in contempt of court is something to avoid; people generally know that, if someone is held in contempt, this essentially means that this individual refused to cooperate with the court in some way. A classic example is the defiant or rude litigant, a person who does something clearly in violation of a judge’s unambiguous orders. In this particular scenario, it becomes clear how a finding of contempt can be justified, and it becomes effortless to grasp the essence of this concept. If someone is slapped with a contempt of court finding, he or she needs to know how to best navigate himself or herself out of the situation. The case of Shoemaker v. Shoemaker (2016) is useful for learning how to deal with a contempt finding. Let’s explore this case in detail.
Case Summary
The couple in this case ended in a 6-year marriage in 2013. The couple had two children, and the husband was ordered to pay alimony to the wife. The husband fell behind on his alimony payments, and eventually the court assessed an arrearage of $100,000; the court ordered that the husband make a lump sum payment toward this deficiency in May 2014 in the amount of $40,000. The husband's failure to make the payment resulted in the judge holding him in contempt of court due to his alleged ability to pay.The judge further ordered the husband to pay a “purge fee” of $12,000 to remove the contempt finding and avoid jail time. In other words, the husband had to pay a fine of $12,000 to avoid incarceration.
The husband argued that this state of affairs was unacceptable because it effectively made the avoidance of jail time directly dependent on one’s ability to pay. The U.S. has a longstanding principle that “debtor’s prison” is unacceptable, and the husband argued that this principle applied here.
Outcome & Discussion
The judge contended that the husband had the ability to pay and simply refused when he failed to deposit the $40,000 in May 2014. However, the husband argued that he lacked the ability to pay, and therefore the contempt finding was incorrect. The appellate court reviewed the case and ultimately sided, in part, with the husband. If a litigant, such as the husband in this case, has the ability to satisfy an obligation such as child support and fails, that person may be held in contempt and jailed accordingly. However, this contempt finding is contingent on a finding that the individual did in fact lack the financial means to make the payment. The appellate court stated that, when the possibility of jail time is firmly addressed, the litigant then is entitled to an analysis to determine whether he or she had the financial means. So, although the husband’s argument might succeed, the appellate court concluded that it was brought prematurely. Hence, the lesson here is that contempt findings which may lead to incarceration can only derive from failure to pay when the litigant has the ability to pay; and, if this issue is contested, it will be contested when incarceration is directly addressed.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you would like to learn more, or if you have a new query, don’t hesitate to reach out to one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
