Jenkins v. Mehra

• Decision Date: 13 January 2011
• Docket Number: Record No. 092272.
• Citation: 704 S.E.2d 577,281 Va. 37
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Jimmie D. JENKINS, Director, Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Servicesv.Raj MEHRA, et al.

281 Va. 37

704 S.E.2d 577

Jimmie D. JENKINS, Director, Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services

v.Raj MEHRA, et al.

Record No. 092272.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Jan. 13, 2011.

Laura S. Gori, Assistant County Attorney (David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; R. Scott Wynn, Deputy County Attorney, on briefs), for appellant.William M. Baskin, Jr. (Baskin, Jackson & Duffett, on brief), Falls Church, for appellees.Present: All the Justices.Opinion by Justice CYNTHIA D. KINSER.

This appeal challenges a trial court's judgment refusing to hold a party in contempt after having found that the party failed to abide by the terms of a prior order of the court awarding injunctive relief. We will dismiss the appeal because this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the refusal to find civil contempt.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The events culminating in this appeal originated in 2005, when the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) issued notices to Raj Mehra and Urvashi Mehra (the Mehras), advising them that certain conditions on their real property located in Fairfax County violated particular provisions of various Fairfax County ordinances.¹ The notices asserted violations in regard to a drainage system on the real property and an impervious area greater than 18 percent of the total area of the Mehras' real property. In the notices, DPWES ordered the Mehras to take corrective actions to bring their real property into compliance with the relevant ordinances.

In September 2007, Jimmie D. Jenkins, the Director of DPWES, filed a complaint in the circuit court, alleging that the Mehras had neither complied with the notices of violation, requested reconsideration of DPWES' decision, nor appealed that decision. Jenkins requested the circuit court to declare that the Mehras' real property was in violation of the relevant Fairfax County ordinances and to issue injunctive relief requiring the Mehras to correct the violations on their real property. The circuit court entered a consent order in September 2008, which declared that the Mehras' real property was in violation of particular ordinances and directed the Mehras to bring their real property into compliance according to a schedule set forth in the consent order.

Because the Mehras did not comply fully with the terms of the consent order, Jenkins filed a motion for a rule to show cause why the Mehras should not be held in contempt for violating the order. The circuit court subsequently issued a rule to show cause, and at a hearing on that rule, the Mehras stipulated that they had not performed certain actions required by the consent order. Urvashi Mehra, however, testified that her husband had lost his job after the entry of the consent order and that a lack of funds prevented the Mehras from completing the work required by the order. The circuit court held that “the terms of the Order of September 12, 2008 have not been met, but that the violation is not willful and therefore not contemptuous.” Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed the rule to show cause.

Jenkins filed a motion to reconsider, arguing, inter alia, that civil contempt does not require a finding of willfulness on the part of the offending party. The circuit court denied the motion, again finding that the Mehras' noncompliance “was not in bad faith or willful disobedience” of the September 2008 order.

We awarded Jenkins this appeal, limited to two assignments of error. In those assignments of error, Jenkins asserts that the circuit court erred in dismissing the rule to show cause on the basis that the Mehras did not willfully violate the consent order because civil contempt does not require a finding of willfulness. Assuming arguendo that willfulness is relevant, Jenkins further contends the circuit court erred in refusing to hold the Mehras in contempt because their failure to comply with the consent order was “based on their own financial priorities.”

In the order awarding the appeal, this Court, sua sponte, directed the parties to address “whether, under the facts of this case, the appellant [Jenkins] has standing to appeal a judgment of the circuit court declining to hold a party in civil contempt and, if so, whether the jurisdiction for appeal is governed by Code § 19.2–318, requiring transfer of the appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, or by Code § 8.01–670(A)(3) or (B)(3).” Jenkins v. Mehra, Record No. 092272 (March 16, 2010). We will address only the jurisdictional issue because it is dispositive.² See Parrish v. Jessee, 250 Va. 514, 520, 464 S.E.2d 141, 145 (1995) (“Jurisdiction is always a threshold issue.”).

ANALYSIS

This Court's “jurisdiction is defined by the [C]onstitution of the state and the laws passed in pursuance thereof.” Forbes v. State Council, 107 Va. 853, 855, 60 S.E. 81, 81 (1908); see also Va. Const. art. VI, § 1 (subject to certain limitations, the General Assembly has “the power to determine the ... appellate jurisdiction of the courts of the Commonwealth”). The jurisdictional inquiry that we must undertake is twofold. We must first determine whether Code § 19.2–318 governs this appeal, in which case jurisdiction would lie in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. If we answer that question in the negative, then we must ascertain whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to Code § 8.01–670(A)(3).³

We begin our analysis by noting that “[t]he right of appellate review from a finding of contempt or a refusal to find contempt did not exist at all at common law.” ⁴ Tyler v. Baltimore Cnty., 256 Md. 64, 259 A.2d 307, 310 (1969); see Cossart v. State, 14 Ark. 538, 541–42 (1854); Cooper v. People, 13 Colo. 337, 22 P. 790, 795 (1889); Hunter v. State, 6 Ind. 339, 340 (1855); New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg, 315 Mass. 739, 54 N.E.2d 915, 917 (1944); Masonite Corp. v. International Woodworkers of Am., AFL CIO, 206 So.2d 171, 177 (Miss.1967). Rather, when not otherwise provided by statute, “the sole adjudication of contempt, and the punishment thereof, belong [ed] exclusively, and without interference, to each respective court.” Wells v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 500, 503–04 (1871) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Van Dyke v. Superior Court of Gila Cnty., 24 Ariz. 508, 211 P. 576, 588 (1922); Ex parte Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652, 653 (1896); Masonite, 206 So.2d at 177. Appellate courts were thus without jurisdiction to review such findings. See, e.g., Onomea Sugar Co. v. Austin, 5 Haw. 604, 606 (1886) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction an appeal of a finding of civil contempt); Hunter, 6 Ind. at 340 (“Courts of record have exclusive control over charges for contempt; and their conviction or acquittal is final and conclusive.”); Tyler, 259 A.2d at 311 (dismissing for want of jurisdiction an appeal of a denial of contempt); State v. Little, 175 N.C. 743, 94 S.E. 680, 681–82 (1917) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction an appeal of a finding of criminal contempt); see generally Cooper, 22 P. at 795 (discussing common law rule and statutory exceptions thereto). This general rule applied to trial court rulings with respect to both civil and criminal contempt. See, e.g., Austin, 5 Haw. at 606; Sandberg, 54 N.E.2d at 917.

Under the common law, the lack of appellate review from a finding of contempt or the refusal to find contempt was justified as necessary because

the power of the ... courts over contempt is omnipotent, and its exercise is not to be enquired into by any other tribunal. This is the great bulwark established by the common law for the protection of courts of justice, and for the maintenance of their dignity, authority and efficiency, and neither in England nor in the United States has this unrestricted power been seriously questioned.

Senior, 19 So. at 653 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he power to punish for contempt was so absolutely essential to the functioning and, indeed, the existence of courts that to be effectual the power must be instantly available and inevitable to the point of not being subject to change.” Tyler, 259 A.2d at 310. To allow “a contumacious witness, juror, party litigant, or counsel” to challenge a finding of contempt on appeal would “effectually check the machinery of the court in its operation, and frustrate the wholesome administration of the law.” Cossart, 14 Ark. at 541.

The General Assembly has declared that in the Commonwealth, “[t]he common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth ... continue[s] in full force [and is] the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.” Code § 1–200; see also Evans v. Evans, 280 Va. 76, 83–84, 695 S.E.2d 173, 176–77 (2010). Thus, because a trial court's ruling regarding contempt was not appealable under the common law, we must determine whether the General Assembly has abrogated the common law rule to provide a right of appeal from contempt proceedings, particularly a trial court's judgment refusing to find civil contempt. In making that determination, this Court must read the enactments of the General Assembly, which “ ‘is presumed to have known and to have had the common law in mind in the enactment of a statute,’ ” in conjunction with the common law, giving effect to both “ ‘unless it clearly appears from express language or by necessary implication that the purpose of the statute was to change the common law.’ ” Isbell v. Commercial Inv. Assocs., Inc., 273 Va. 605, 614, 644 S.E.2d 72, 75–76 (2007) (quoting Wicks v. City of Charlottesville, 215 Va. 274, 276, 208 S.E.2d 752, 755 (1974)). Abrogation of the common law thus occurs only when “the legislative intent to do so is plainly manifested,” as “there is a presumption that no change was intended.” Id. at 613–14, 644 S.E.2d at 75 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

But, even where a statute...