Marriage of Lenger, In re
| Decision Date | 20 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 69550,69550 |
| Citation | 336 N.W.2d 191 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Linda S. LENGER and Joseph J. Lenger. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Barry S. Kaplan of Fairall, Fairall, Kaplan & Condon, Marshalltown, for appellant.
Steven W. Guiter of Johnston & Hicks, Knoxville, for appellee.
Considered by UHLENHOPP, P.J., and HARRIS, McGIVERIN, LARSON, and WOLLE, JJ.
Iowa statutes provide for contempt proceedings as a means of enforcing the provisions of dissolution of marriage decrees. The trial court held it was unconstitutional, on the basis of art. I, § 19 of the Iowa Constitution (imprisonment for debt) to use contempt proceedings as a means to enforce a provision for property division. This contempt proceeding, brought by the wife, was accordingly dismissed. We think such a use of contempt power is constitutional. On the wife's appeal we reverse the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.
Under the dissolution decree filed in 1981 the husband was awarded substantial farm, real, and personal property. As her share of the property division the wife was awarded an automobile and $55,000 in cash, payable in installments. According to the citation, the husband, although capable of doing so, has paid no part of the property settlement and should be found in contempt for his failure. The sole question presented is whether the trial court properly dismissed the proceedings as violative of art. I, § 19 of the Iowa Constitution.
The parties cite the following statutes:
If any party against whom any temporary order or final decree has been entered shall willfully disobey the same, or secrete his property, he may be cited and punished by the court for contempt and be committed to the county jail for a period of time not to exceed thirty days for each offense.
Iowa Code § 598.23 (1981).
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the party entitled to support payments, or an interested party from initiating contempt proceedings on his own motion. If the defaulting party is found to be in contempt, the costs of such proceedings, including attorney's fees for the party initiating the proceedings in an amount deemed reasonable by the court, shall be taxed against such party.
Iowa Code § 598.24 (1981)
Judgments or orders requiring the payment of money, or the delivery of the possession of property, are to be enforced by execution. Obedience to those requiring the performance of any other act is to be coerced by attachment as for a contempt.
Iowa Code § 626.1 (1981)
The following acts or omissions are contempts, and are punishable as such by any of the courts of this state, or by any judicial officer, including judicial magistrates, acting in the discharge of an official duty, as hereinafter provided:
....
3. Illegal resistance to any order or process made or issued by it.
Iowa Code § 665.2 (1981).
The wife believes a property settlement incorporated in a dissolution decree The husband thinks property settlement provisions differ from alimony and child support provisions in that the latter can be modified upon a change of circumstances. A property settlement, he urges, "is more like a contract, expressed or implied, and should be treated as such." Contempt proceedings are not available to collect ordinary money judgments by reason of art. I, § 19 of the Iowa Constitution which provides: "No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action, on mesne or final process, unless in case of fraud; and no person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace."
We have long recognized contempt proceedings as an effective and proper means of enforcing specific provisions of a dissolution decree. In Callenius v. Blair, 309 N.W.2d 415, 418-19 (Iowa 1981), we affirmed the trial court's use of its contempt powers to enforce visitation rights, child support, and alimony provisions of a dissolution decree. In two other cases we held art. I, § 19 of the Iowa Constitution is not offended by contempt proceedings used to enforce alimony or child support provisions of such a decree. See Roach v. Oliver, 215 Iowa 800, 806, 244 N.W. 899, 902 (1932) (child support); Roberts v. Fuller, 210 Iowa 956, 967, 229 N.W. 163, 167-68 (1930) (alimony). Under these cases neither child support nor alimony was a "debt" within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sickler v. Sickler
...775 S.E.2d 534 (2015) ; Phillips v. District Court of Fifth Judicial District, 95 Idaho 404, 509 P.2d 1325 (1973) ; In re Marriage of Lenger, 336 N.W.2d 191 (Iowa 1983) ; Switzer v. Switzer, 460 So.2d 843 (Miss.1984) ; Cobb v. Cobb, 54 N.C.App. 230, 282 S.E.2d 591 (1981) ; Harris v. Harris,......
-
Skinner v. Ruigh
...United States Constitution. Jerry acknowledges that the third question was resolved adversely to his position in In re Marriage of Lenger, 336 N.W.2d 191, 192-93 (Iowa 1983). He also acknowledges that the fourth question was resolved against his position in Lamb v. Eads, 346 N.W.2d 830 (Iow......
-
Marriage of Anderson, In re
...However, the continued validity of these decisions is in question in light of the supreme court's decision in In re Marriage of Lenger, 336 N.W.2d 191, 192 (Iowa 1983) (expressing disapproval of DeKlotz and its strict circumscription of section 598.24). In any case, while the payments at is......
-
Quiles v. Munoz
...(remanding for district court to determine whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt existed for contempt finding); In re Marriage of Lenger, 336 N.W.2d 191, 193 (Iowa 1983) (reversing district court's dismissal of contempt action as unconstitutional and remanding for further proceedings). Be......