Christensen v. Iowa District Court for Polk County

• Decision Date: 28 May 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-983,97-983
• Citation: 578 N.W.2d 675
• Parties: Steven C. CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff, v. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY, Defendant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 675

578 N.W.2d 675

Steven C. CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff, v.IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY, Defendant.

No. 97-983

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 28, 1998

William A. Price, Des Moines, for plaintiff.

Martha Fagg, Des Moines, for defendant.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and LARSON, LAVORATO, ANDREASEN, and TERNUS, JJ.

TERNUS, Justice.

Sue Christensen, former wife of the plaintiffSteven Christensen, filed an application for contempt, alleging Steven had willfully failed to comply with the child-support provisions of their dissolution decree.The trial court found Steven in contempt and sentenced him to thirty days in jail with all but one-half hour suspended.The court ordered Steven to serve the remaining one-half hour in the courtroom.Steven filed a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming (1) there was not substantial evidence to support a finding of contempt, and (2)the court lacked authority to order him to serve his sentence in the courtroom.Sue argues Steven's challenge to the courtroom incarceration is moot, as he has already served that portion of his sentence.

We find substantial evidence to support the trial court's contempt finding.Although we conclude any ruling on the sentencing issue will have no practical effect in this case, we address this issue, nonetheless, because it falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine.Addressing the merits of the sentencing issue, we hold the court was without authority to imprison Steven in the courtroom.Notwithstanding this conclusion, we can grant no relief to Steven as he has already served the illegal sentence.Consequently, we annul the writ in part and sustain the writ in part, but do not remand for resentencing.

I.Background Facts and Proceedings.

The marriage of Steven and Sue was dissolved in 1980.Under the terms of the dissolution decree, Steven was ordered to pay child support for the Christensen's three children.In 1994, the decree was modified; under the modified decree, Steven was to pay child support, maintain medical insurance for the children, and pay one-half of the children's uninsured medical expenses.

In 1997, Sue filed an application for contempt, alleging Steven had failed to pay child support for over a year, had refused to maintain medical insurance for the children, and had not paid his half of their uninsured medical expenses.At the hearing on Sue's application, Sue claimed Steven has refused to file tax returns for the years 1994 through 1996 because he knew the refunds would be applied to his support obligation.She asserted Steven has also willfully failed to obtain employment since he lost his job with the Iowa Department of Revenue for failure to file his tax returns.Finally, she claimed that although she has attempted to attach Steven's $20,000 retirement account, Steven has not taken any action to make it available to pay his child support obligation.

Steven admitted that he had not fulfilled his financial obligations under the modified decree since February 1996, when he was terminated from his job.He claimed he had not filed his tax returns because he was still reconstructing his records, which were destroyed when heavy rains in 1993 caused his basement wall to collapse.He acknowledged current, part-time employment by the Iowa National Guard, but pointed out he earned only $494 per month.Steven claimed he could not find a better-paying job because of physical restrictions imposed by his doctor to relieve pain from a strangulated hernia and slipped disk.According to Steven, these physical restrictions precluded him from blue-collar jobs and his employment record with the State of Iowa obstructed his attempts to find a white-collar job.Finally, Steven complained about financial pressures stemming from two civil judgments against him and child support obligations to his children from another marriage.

The district court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven had willfully failed to fulfill his child support obligations, and had willfully failed to file income tax returns.The court sentenced Steven to thirty days in the county jail, with all but one-half hour suspended.That one-half hour was ordered to be served in the courtroom at the conclusion of the hearing.Pursuant to this sentence, the deputy handcuffed Steven and placed him in a chair at the back of the courtroom.He was released after one-half hour.The court withheld mittimus on the remaining twenty-nine days and twenty-three and one-half hours term on the condition that Steven reduce the amount of his accrued child support obligation by seventy-five percent by June 1, 1997.

Steven filed a petition for writ of certiorari.He claims there is insufficient evidence to support the contempt finding, and asks that this finding be reversed.In the alternative, Steven argues the one-half hour of imprisonment in the courtroom was illegal under Iowa Code section 598.23(1)(1997), which authorizes imprisonment in the "county jail."He requests the case be remanded for resentencing.

II.Scope of Review.

Our review is at law.SeeAmro v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 429 N.W.2d 135, 140(Iowa1988).In a certiorari action, we may examine only the jurisdiction of the district court and the legality of its actions.SeeFrench v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 546 N.W.2d 911, 913(Iowa1996);Iowa R. Civ. P. 306.Illegality exists when the court's factual findings lack substantial evidentiary support, or when the court has not properly applied the law.SeeAmro, 429 N.W.2d at 138.

III.Is There Substantial Evidence to Support the District Court's Finding of Contempt?

On review of a contempt ruling, this court must determine whether substantial evidence exists that would "convince a rational trier of fact that the alleged contemner is guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt."Ervin v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 495 N.W.2d 742, 744-45(Iowa1993).The party requesting the contempt finding has the burden of proving that the contemner (1) had a duty to obey a court order, and (2) willfully failed to perform that duty.SeeIn re Marriage of Jacobo, 526 N.W.2d 859, 866(Iowa1995).Once a violation of a court order has been shown, the burden shifts to the alleged contemner to produce evidence suggesting that the violation was not willful.Seeid.;Ervin, 495 N.W.2d at 745.Nevertheless, the contemnee retains the burden to prove willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt.SeeJacobo, 526 N.W.2d at 866.

Willful disobedience supporting a contempt finding

"requires evidence of conduct that is intentional and deliberate with a bad or evil purpose, or wanton and in disregard of the rights of others, or contrary to a known duty, or unauthorized, coupled with an unconcern whether the contemner had the right or not."

Amro, 429 N.W.2d at 140(quotingLutz v. Darbyshire, 297 N.W.2d 349, 353(Iowa1980)).There are two ways in which the contemner may show that a failure to comply with a court order was not willful: (1) the order was indefinite; or (2) the contemner was unable to perform the act ordered.SeeMcKinley v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 542 N.W.2d 822, 824(Iowa1996).

Here, Steven has admitted his noncompliance with the court's modified dissolution decree; therefore, Sue has established her prima facie case.Because Steven does not claim that the court's order concerning child support was indefinite, the only issue in this case is whether Steven was unable to pay the court-ordered support.Although he presented evidence of financial hardship, we find substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Steven willfully failed to make child-support payments, maintain health insurance on his children, and pay one-half their uninsured medical expenses.

The primary piece of evidence supporting the trial court's finding of contempt is the uncontroverted existence of a retirement account Steven could have accessed to meet his obligations.As we observed years ago, the test for determining an ability to pay " 'is not merely whether [the contemner] is presently working or has current funds or cash on hand, but whether he has any property out of which payment can be made.' "Callenius v. Blair, 309 N.W.2d 415, 419(Iowa1981)(quotingHarkins v. Harkins, 256 Iowa 207, 211, 127 N.W.2d 87, 90(1964)), overruled byPhillips v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 380 N.W.2d 706, 709(Iowa1986)(overruling in part on the issue of the proper burden of proof applied in contempt actions).Even on appeal, Steven offers no excuse for his failure to tap his retirement account to pay his court-ordered obligations.

In a similar case, we held that a parent's failure to apply retirement account funds to the parent's decretal obligation was a critical factor in finding the parent had the ability to comply with the court's order.McKinley, 542 N.W.2d at 824-25.As we noted in that case, a parent is "not free to prioritize [the parent's] financial obligations so as to prefer [the parent's] own creditors over [the parent's]court-ordered obligation."Id. at 825.

Like the contemner in McKinley, Steven had property out of which he could have paid his child support--his retirement account.We consider this account available for his support obligations even though his withdrawal of these monies would have meant the loss of his employee status with the State's retirement fund.Again, Steven's personal finances cannot take priority over his obligations to his children.

We also note that the trial court found Steven's excuses for failing to find more lucrative employment and for failing to file his income tax returns unconvincing.The district court plainly believed Steven had purposely chosen not to seek suitable employment and not to file his tax returns.We give "great deference to the trial court on issues of witness credibility."Id.Moreover, other evidence supports the trial court's disregard of Steven's explanations.Steven had a college education and three years in which to reconstruct his tax records.The trial court...