Hutchins v. Hutchins, CA
| Decision Date | 30 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Parties | Albert Curtis HUTCHINS, Appellant, v. Karen Ruth HUTCHINS, Appellee. 97-429. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
This appeal was filed in the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The appellee, Karen Ruth Hutchins, moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no final, appealable order. The appellant, Albert Curtis Hutchins, responded to the effect that the orders being appealed are contempt orders which are final. In his response, Mr. Hutchins stated that he had filed a federal bankruptcy petition and that Ms. Hutchins had petitioned the federal Bankruptcy Court for relief from the automatic stay of proceedings required by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Ms. Hutchins's petition for relief from the stay was pending when the response to this motion was filed. Mr. Hutchins also asked for additional time to file his abstract and brief. The Court of Appeals certified the motion to this Court because this Court has not determined the effect of the "automatic stay" provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) upon contempt proceedings. We hold that the contempt orders are final and appealable. Some of them are merely coercive and thus civil in nature. Those orders are stayed by the federal law. One of the orders is a criminal contempt citation. It is not stayed by the federal bankruptcy law. Further consideration of the case will remain with the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Hutchins was held in "willful contempt" on a number of grounds having to do with his failure to comply with previous court orders concerning custody of the Hutchinses' son, Joseph. The sanctions imposed were, however, in all but one instance prospective and coercive in nature. Those were civil contempt citations which were entered for the purpose of compelling obedience to orders and decrees made for the benefit of the parties. Bates v. McNeil, 318 Ark. 764, 888 S.W.2d 642 (1994); Fitzhugh v. State, 296 Ark. 137, 752 S.W.2d 275 (1988).
One of the Chancery Court's orders was, however, a criminal contempt order. It fined Mr. Hutchins $50 outright for having written on the child's underwear a message to Ms. Hutchins having to do with his allegation that Ms. Hutchins had sexually abused the child. That obviously final order was entered to punish Mr. Hutchins for disobedience to its previous order not to do or say anything that would lead the child to believe he was unsafe in the custody of either parent. As it was punitive in nature, that order was a criminal contempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Wiese
...B.R. 423 (D. Kan. 1994); Stovall v. Stovall, 126 B.R. 814 (N.D. Ga. 1990); In re Roussin, 97 B.R. 130 (D. N.H. 1989); Hutchins v. Hutchins, 954 S.W.2d 249 (Ark. 1997). Therefore, the distinction relevant to this issue is whether the contempt order issued by the justice court was one for civ......
-
Crowe v. Crowe
...been found in indirect criminal contempt because it was a violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay. She cites Hutchins v. Hutchins, 330 Ark. 426, 954 S.W.2d 249 (1997), which held that 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1) stays civil-contempt orders until such time as the automatic stay is lifted by the b......
-
Jensen v. Conrad House, CA01-379
...in the sense that one need not wait until the underlying proceedings are concluded to appeal from the contempt. See Hutchins v. Hutchins, 330 Ark. 426, 954 S.W.2d 249 (1997). However, a contempt order must be a final contempt order to be appealable, i.e., it must be a final disposition of t......