Gonzales v. District Court In and For Otero County
| Decision Date | 15 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80,80 |
| Citation | 629 P.2d 1074 |
| Parties | Ralph GONZALES, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT In and For the COUNTY OF OTERO, State of Colorado, and the Honorable Fred E. Sisk, one of the Judges thereof, Respondents. SA 553. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Lawrence K. Dean, Philip M. Bienvenu, Colorado Rural Legal Services, Inc., La Junta, for petitioner.
Michael T. Mitchell, Mitchell & Mitchell, P. C., Rocky Ford, for respondents.
In this original proceeding under C.A.R. 21, the Petitioner Ralph Gonzales asks us to vacate an order of the Respondent Otero County District Court (Otero District Court) denying his motion to dismiss a citation directing him to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the Otero District Court for his alleged failure to comply with a Decree of Dissolution (decree) entered by the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver (Denver District Court). We issued a Rule to Show Cause, and because we now conclude that the Otero District Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Denver District Court's decree, we make the Rule absolute.
In April, 1974, the Denver District Court entered a decree dissolving the Petitioner's marriage to Shirley J. Gonzales (Ms. Gonzales). The decree granted custody of the couple's minor child to Ms. Gonzales and ordered the Petitioner to make monthly child support payments of $75.00 "until further order of the court."
Both the Petitioner and Ms. Gonzales now reside in Otero County, Colorado. On July 29, 1980, the Otero County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a civil action captioned "Petition for Order Directing Issuance of Contempt Citation" in Otero District Court. The petition alleged that Ms. Gonzales had assigned her child support rights against the Petitioner to the Colorado Department of Social Services and that the Petitioner had failed to make the monthly child support payments ordered by the Denver District Court. The petition was accompanied by a certified copy of the Denver decree.
In accordance with C.R.C.P. 107, the Otero District Court issued an ex parte citation to the Petitioner ordering him to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the Otero District Court for his failure to make the child support payments decreed by the Denver District Court. The Petitioner moved to dismiss the contempt citation, arguing that the Otero District Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the decree. The Otero District Court denied the Petitioner's motion and this original proceeding was filed.
It is settled law in Colorado that a court may exercise its power of contempt to enforce orders entered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Harvey v. Harvey, 153 Colo. 15, 384 P.2d 265 (1963). See section 14-10-118(2), C.R.S.1973; C.R.C.P. 107. It is equally well-settled that a district court which properly acquires jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter in a dissolution action retains that jurisdiction until all matters arising out of the litigation are resolved. Blank v. District Court, 190 Colo. 114, 543 P.2d 1255 (1976); Brown v. Brown, 183 Colo. 356, 516 P.2d 1129 (1974). Among these matters is the support of the parties' minor children. Sauls v. Sauls, 40 Colo.App. 275, 577 P.2d 771 (1978), cert. den. April 24, 1978. Thus, a district court which has entered a decree of dissolution possesses continuing in personam and subject matter jurisdiction to enforce its child support orders by punishing a non-complying obligor for contempt of court; contempt for failure to comply with the court's orders is not a separate proceeding but a continuance of the dissolution action. Brown v. Brown, 31 Colo.App. 557, 506 P.2d 386 (1973), aff'd in part, r'vd in part, 183 Colo. 356, 516 P.2d 1129 (1974). See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 60 Misc.2d 622, 303 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1969).
As a general rule, jurisdiction to punish a contempt rests solely in the contemned court; no court can try a contempt against another. 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt § 84. 1 As we observed in Shotkin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 124 Colo. 141, 144, 235 P.2d 990, 992 (1951):
(Emphasis added.) Accord Ogeltree v. Watson, 223 Ga. 618, 157 S.E.2d 464 (1967); Connell v. Connell, 222 Ga. 765, 152 S.E.2d 567 (1966); Houston v. Hennessy, 534 S.W.2d 52 (Mo.App.1975); Shapiro v. Shapiro, supra.
Here, the Denver District Court, because it possesses continuing jurisdiction to enforce the decree, is "the court having jurisdiction of the case." Shotkin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., supra. The Petitioner's failure to pay child support is a contempt against the Denver District Court which it alone may try. The Otero District Court lacks jurisdiction to punish the Petitioner for a contempt committed against another court.
The Otero District Court asserts, however, that it possesses jurisdiction to hold the Petitioner in contempt under either of two exceptions to the principles enunciated above.
First, the Otero District Court argues that it is acting as an "agent" of the Denver District Court for the purpose of enforcing the decree. See 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt § 84, supra. However, the Otero District Court does not explain how it acquired this status and we decline to fashion a general rule that each district court in this state is, ipso facto, an agent of the others, authorized to enforce their orders through the exercise of its power of contempt. 2
Second, the Otero District Court argues that jurisdiction to try the Petitioner's alleged contempt is conferred upon it by section 14-11-101(2), C.R.S.1973 (1980 Supp.). That statute provides:
"The courts of this state in cases of dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity of marriage, or for support of minor children or a spouse, or for any combination of the same, where the action originated in this state, have the power to enforce the decrees, judgments, and orders of other states or jurisdictions made pursuant to statutes similar to this statute, or to amend the same, or to enter new orders to the same extent and in the same manner as though such decrees, judgments, and orders were entered in the courts of this state."
(Emphasis added.) The Otero District Court argues that the italicized phrase "other jurisdictions" denotes not only foreign jurisdictions, but other judicial districts within Colorado. We disagree.
Subsection (2) of section 14-11-101 has never before been separately construed by this Court. However, in Glickman v. Mesigh Colo., 615 P.2d 23 (1980), a suit seeking modification of an out-of-state divorce decree under section 14-11-101(1) (1980 Supp.), 3 we held that section 14-11-101, in toto :
"reflects a legislative intent to prevent the state of Colorado from becoming a haven for a parent against whom minimal or ... no support orders have been entered in the jurisdiction of rendition by granting Colorado courts explicit authority to enter appropriate orders in a manner consistent with the full faith and credit clause (U.S.Const. art. IV, sec. 1)."
Colo., 615 P.2d at 26 (emphasis added). See also In re Marriage of Clark, Colo.App., 616 P.2d 1010 (1980). The authority of courts in this state to enter orders enforcing or modifying the decrees of "other jurisdictions" is subordinated to the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution only if those jurisdictions lie outside Colorado's territorial boundaries. It therefore makes little sense to construe the phrase "other jurisdictions" in either subsections (1) or (2) of section 14-11-101 to mean, inter alia, other judicial districts within the state of Colorado. "(T)he cardinal purpose, intent or purport of the whole act shall control (;) ... all the parts (shall) be interpreted as subsidiary and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lohman v. Lohman
...no opinion when, or under what circumstances, section 14–11–101may be used to register a foreign support judgment. SeeGonzales v. Dist. Court,629 P.2d 1074 (Colo.1981)(discussing applicability of section 14–11–101); In re Marriage of Hillstrom,126 P.3d 315 (Colo.App.2005)(same).5 While the ......
-
Cavallari v. Martin
...are in different counties). Where, as here, the parties reside in the same county, RURESA does not apply. See Gonzales v. District Court, 629 P.2d 1074, 1076 n. 2 (Colo.1981) (identical language in Colorado RURESA does not apply where obligor and obligee are residents of same county of same......
-
People v. Proffitt
...to judge another judge). Thus, the district court judge here can sit for Goldsmith as a successor trial court, see Gonzales v. District Court, 629 P.2d 1074 (Colo.1981), but such court has no authority to hold Goldsmith, acting as a district court judge, in contempt of Proffitt argues that,......
-
Marriage of Hartley, In re
...Koltay v. Koltay, 667 P.2d 1374, 1376 (Colo.1983) (attainment of age of 21 creates presumption of emancipation); Gonzales v. District Court, 629 P.2d 1074, 1076 (Colo.1981) (court has continuing jurisdiction over a dissolution of marriage In this case, CLC filed an entry of appearance on Er......
-
Securing Future Child Support Obligations
...[7] CRS § 15-11-514. [8] CRS § 14-10-122(1)(a)-(b). [9] CRS § 14-10-115(13). [10] See CRS § 14-10-115. [11] Gonzales v. Dist Court, 629 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1981). [12] CRS § 14-10-115(1)(a)(l). [13] Icke, 530 P.2d at 1003. [14] CRS § 14-10-115(13). [15] CRS §§ 11-50-101 et seq. [16] CRS § 11-5......