Corrigeux v. Corrigeux

• Decision Date: 22 November 1950
• Docket Number: 31453.
• Citation: 224 P.2d 343,37 Wn.2d 403
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CORRIGEUX, v. CORRIGEUX.

224 P.2d 343

37 Wn.2d 403

CORRIGEUX, v. CORRIGEUX.

No. 31453.

Supreme Court of Washington.

November 22, 1950

Department 1.

Burton J. Onstine, Clyde E. Ellis, Spokane, for appellants.

Justin C Maloney, Spokane, for respondent.

HILL, Justice.

The question here presented is whether a man can be punished for contempt by imprisonment because of his failure to make monthly payments to his divorced wife in accordance with a provision of the divorce decree reading as follows: 'It is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the sum of $42.00 per month until $1516.00 is paid without interest, except should plaintiff's monthly compensation be reduced, the monthly payments shall be reduced accordingly but in no event are they to be less than $30.00 per month.'

None of the payments provided for in the decree were made, and, after a hearing on an order to show cause, the trial court entered an order reading in part as follows:

'* * * It is hereby,

'Ordered Adjudged and Decreed that the plaintiff above named, Reginald Corrigeux, is guilty of Contempt of this Court for his failure to have made the August, September October, November and December, 1949 and January, 1950 payments in the amount of $42.00 each as ordered in the Decree of Divorce herein dated August 4, 1949.

'It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed that the plaintiff, Reginald Corrigeux, be and he is hereby ordered confined in the Spokane County Jail for a period of 30 days for said offense unless on or prior to February 16, 1950plaintiff pays into the registry of this Court the sum of $50.00 for credit upon the sum of $252.00 now past due defendant under the Decree of Divorce herein.'

Mr. Corrigeux appeals.

Passing the question of whether a sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term can be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding, the purpose of which is not punitive but coercive, we are convinced that the respondent is not entitled to enforce, by contempt proceedings, the order for the payment of $1,516 in monthly installments.

We recently considered a somewhat similar problem in State ex rel Adams v. Superior Court, Wash.,220 P.2d 1081, 1083, where the superior court had "Ordered that defendant pay plaintiff $2000.00 at $50.00 per month, first payment August 1st, 1947."We there held that the $2,000 was alimony, although alimony was not mentioned in the interlocutory decree.We there said: '* * * It is sufficient if the fair import of the language clearly indicates the court intended the award was for alimony or maintenance.'

The 'fair import of the language' involves a consideration of the facts and circumstances Before the trial court at the time the order was entered.

It is conceded that, if the $1,516 referred to in this case were alimony its payment could be enforced by contempt proceedings.However, we hold that it is not alimony, because all the facts and circumstances Before the trial court negative...