Brown v. District Court of Webster County
Decision Date | 07 May 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 52786,52786 |
Citation | 158 N.W.2d 744 |
Parties | Joseph E. BROWN, Appellant, v. DISTRICT COURT OF WEBSTER COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Johnson, Burnquist & McCormick, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
David A. Opheim, County Atty., and R. Thomas Price, Asst. County Atty., Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Petitioner has filed application for writ of certiorari to review defendant's order finding petitioner guilty of contempt of court. This procedure is provided in Iowa Code, 1966, section 665.11:
In 1966 petitioner was involved in a real estate contract forfeiture case. He was vendor seeking to forfeit the contract. Defendant, as trial judge in that case, entered an order dismissing petitioner's complaint. The explanatory portion of the ruling read:
Apparently the vendees did not make up their delinquent payments and petitioner was disturbed. He took ill advised action. He and his wife executed a deed conveying the real estate in question to Judge Kelley. The face of the deed contained the typed assertion, 'This conveyance is subject to contract recorded in mortgage record * * *'
. Petitioner filed the deed in the recorder's office. He then forwarded the file marked original with the following letter, dated March 11, 1967. 'Dear Sir: Enclosed you will find a deed to the property in Savage Addition. There is also an assignment of contract. I have enclosed the payment schedule and I am sure you will not mind making payments for the Martens as I have no further interest in the property, and would like to be relieved of my obligation.
'Due to the fact that you thought I was depriving these nice people of their interest, I'm sure you won't mind looking after them.
'The 1966 property taxes due and payable in 1967 have not been paid to date.
'A short note from you to them should take care of the matter.
'I hope you have better luck with these nice people than I have had, as I am over $400.00 in the red in this transaction.
'Yours truly,'
On March 29th, 1967 Judge Kelley and his wife executed a quit claim deed back to petitioner and his wife stating Inter alia the former deed was erroneous, the judge and his wife disclaimed any relationship whatsoever to said property and obligations relating thereto and stated the recitals in the former deeds were erroneous.
This accomplished, on April 28 the Court entered an order to show cause why petitioner should not be held in contempt. Hearing was held Monday, June 12. Petitioner appeared with an attorney, took the stand, admitted he was angry because he couldn't get the vendees to pay up. It should be remembered petitioners had the Conservative Mortgage Co. payments to meet.
Petitioner said he hadn't intended to be disrespectful or insolent to the court, he had made a mistake, would be glad to write an apology or do anything else required to make amends.
Cross examination by the county attorney showed petitioner to have been a real estate broker for some eleven years and in the contracting business before that; he had been involved in land contract sales and also in litigation quite often. He again said he acted out of temper but not out of temper directed against the court.
Defendant then entered an order adjudging petitioner guilty of contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in jail to be served on four successive week-ends from Friday evening to Sunday morning. Hence defendant was actually sentenced to about six days in jail.
I. If petitioner's actions are considered to be a contempt of court, the contempt is indirect or constructive, as distinguished from direct contempt. '(L)etters or other written communications sent
through the mail to a judge necessarily seem to fall within the class of comtempts known as indirect or constructive contempts'. 31 A.L.R. 1239; Bulcke v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.2d 510, 94 P.2d 1006, 1009.
If petitioner had contented himself with a letter of criticism, we would have no real difficulty with this case. As this court said in the early case of State of Iowa v. Dunham (1858), 6 Iowa 245, 256,
In Haines v. District Court, 199 Iowa 476, 480, 202 N.W. 268, 270, we said:
In re Jameson, 139 Colo. 171, 340 P.2d 423, 428, the Supreme Court of Colorado said: See also Wood v. Georgia (1962), 370 U.S. 375, 82 S.Ct. 1464, 8 L.Ed.2d 569.
II. But the petitioner did more than criticize, he acted. 1 The distinction between mere criticism and overt action is noted in the same Dunham case, loc. cit. p. 254 of 6 Iowa.
Petitioner placed of record a deed which transferred to defendant the very property upon which defendant had passed judgment. Defendant thus became the record title holder.
Iowa Code, 1966, section 665.2(1) includes as contempt: 'Contemptuous or insolent behavior toward such court while engaged in the discharge of a judicial duty which may tend to impair the respect due to its authority.'
III. Petitioner's action did not take the form of physical assault on the person of the court. It was none the less action which tended 'to impair the respect due to its authority.' The uncorrected public record could be viewed as recorded evidence of wrongdoing.
Mr. Brown and his wife deeded property to defendant with the gratuitous, and false, assertion that defendant had assumed the mortgage constituting a lien on the property recently the subject of litigation before the judge to whom he deeded the property. He thereby created a situation which went far beyond being mere published criticism. The action affected the court as an institution. Harding v. McCullough, 236 Iowa 556, 19 N.W.2d 613. The deed itself was published in one of the most effective ways known to our laws; that is, by filing with the county recorder for official public notice. Petitioner required defendant, and his wife, to take overt action to divest themselves of claim of title to the property, to assert in a written instrument that statements in the original deed were false and to record the instrument at the recorder's office.
Mr. Brown's action was entirely inconsistent with the orderly administration of the court. Judge Kelley correctly ordered petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. Absent prompt action to protect the good name and integrity of the court, plaintiff had made a public record entry (presumptively true) of the court's improper interest in the subject of its decision.
IV. Our rules of review were recently set forth in America Security Benev. Ass'n v. District...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knox v. Municipal Court of City of Des Moines, Polk County
...for whose benefit a court order was made are civil contempts. As we treat all contempts as quasi-criminal in Iowa, Brown v. District Court (Iowa, 1968), 158 N.W.2d 744, 748; Huston v. Huston (1963), 255 Iowa 543, 549, 122 N.W.2d 892, 896; Brody v. District Court (1959), 250 Iowa 1217, 1221,......
-
Allen v. Lindeman
...certiorari of that order. Recent cases where this court has changed punishment on review of a contempt finding are: Brown v. District Court etc., Iowa, 158 N.W.2d 744, 750 and Newby v. District Court etc., 259 Iowa 1330, 147 N.W.2d 886. Such piecemeal review is not allowable except for good......
-
First Am. Bank v. Fobian Farms, Inc.
...of well-founded legal principles." Citizens have a First Amendment right to criticize court decisions. See Brown v. Iowa Dist. Ct. , 158 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1968) (collecting cases and concluding a letter of criticism was not punishable in contempt proceeding), overruled on other grounds ......
-
Lutz v. Darbyshire
...proof of the contemptuous conduct need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and satisfactory proof is required. Brown v. District Court, 158 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1968); Huston v. Huston, 255 Iowa 543, 549, 122 N.W.2d 892, 896 (1963); see State v. Cullison, 227 N.W.2d 121, 126 (Iowa 1975......