Warren v. Robinson, 85-65
| Decision Date | 24 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-65,85-65 |
| Citation | 704 S.W.2d 614,288 Ark. 249 |
| Parties | Chester and Hilda R. WARREN, Appellants, v. Toney ROBINSON, Shirley Robinson, Warren G. Southard and Yvonne Workman, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Susanne K. Roberts, Russellville, for appellants.
Bill Strait, Dardanelle, for appellees.
This is a second appeal arising from a lawsuit over an easement for use of a roadway and contempt proceedings for violation of the trial court's previous orders. Our jurisdiction is based upon Sup.Ct.R. 29(1)(j).
In the previous appeal of this case, Warren v. Cudd, 261 Ark. 690, 550 S.W.2d 773 (1977), we affirmed the findings of the trial court establishing an easement, but we further held that the use of the roadway was restricted by the conditions mutually agreed upon by the parties' predecessors in title. The conditions were that the gate would be locked, that the public would be kept out, and that only the rebuilt roadway would be used. The Chancery Court decision was entered of record in September of 1976, and was affirmed as modified by this court in May of 1977.
In February, 1983, the appellees filed a petition in Chancery Court alleging the appellants had maliciously removed the existing gate and placed a fence across the roadway, thereby totally restricting appellees' use. This matter apparently was heard by the court on September 6, 1983, at which time the trial court found appellants in contempt of court. The court's order, however, was not filed of record until August 16, 1985.
On January 15, 1985, after another hearing, the Chancellor found that:
the defendants [appellants] are in contempt of this Court's prior orders and hereby orders that:
1. The defendants at no time will place any gate across the road in issue different from the type of metal gate used in September of 1976.
2. The defendants shall not place an obstruction of any kind whatsoever across the road in issue in a position different than that used in September, 1976.
3. The defendant, Chester Warren, is committed to the Yell County Jail until such time as he posts a $2,500.00 cash compliance bond with the Yell Chancery Clerk.
4. The defendants shall pay a $1,000.00 find, and said fine is hereby suspended.
5. The defendants shall pay the plaintiff's attorney a fee of $250.00.
The appellants admit that they erected a wire-gap gate on the perimeter of their property, some 200 yards north of the metal gate which was established in 1976. They contend that the purpose of this new gate was to close their property to confine their cattle. Appellants maintain that they were confused regarding the restrictions placed on the roadway by the court in 1983, particularly in light of the fact that the order was not entered of record until after the appeal of the January, 1985 order.
Appellees testified that the wire-gap gate had been stapled to the post to prevent use, and that such a wire gate was an obstruction placed on the lands by the appellants, contrary to the court's order of September, 1976.
Appellants argue (1) The Chancellor's finding that appellants were in contempt of court was against the preponderance of the evidence; (2) The Chancellor erred in not finding appellees in contempt; (3) The Chancellor erred by not permitting appellants to construct a new gate at a different location on the roadway; and (4) The Chancellor abused his discretion by ruling on issues not properly before the court.
Appellants contend that they cannot determine whether the court's citation was for civil or criminal contempt. The Chancellor's findings and the punishment meted out indicate that he considered the proceeding as one for both civil and criminal contempt. See Dennison v. Mobley, Chancellor, 257 Ark. 216, 515 S.W.2d 215 (1974).
In cases of civil contempt, the objective is the enforcement of the rights of the private parties to litigation. On the other hand, the primary reason for punishment for criminal contempt is the necessity for maintaining the dignity, integrity and authority of, and respect toward, courts, and the deterrent effect on others is just as important as the punishment of the offender. Dennison v. Mobley, Chancellor, supra.
The distinctions and reasons therefore have been discussed by us in Songer v. State, 236 Ark. 20, 364 S.W.2d 155 (1963), citing Blackard, et al v. State, 217 Ark. 661, 232 S.W.2d 977, (1950). In Songer we stated:
It is not questioned that punishment for civil contempt will be upheld by this Court unless the order of the trial court is arbitrary or against the weight of the evidence. However, it is not necessary for us to hold the petitioner was found guilty of only civil contempt in order to sustain the trial court. We think the trial court should be sustained even if the petitioner were guilty of criminal contempt.
Even though civil contempt findings are reviewed to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies, we only examine the record for substantial evidence in criminal contempt cases and affirm a judgment finding criminal contempt unless we find no substantial evidentiary support. Dennison v. Mobley, Chancellor, supra.
Weighing the testimony in light of these rules, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports the finding of civil contempt and there is substantial evidence to support the order of criminal contempt.
In the trial court's decree of 1976, the Chancellor found that the appellees had a right-of-way across appellants' property and enjoined the appellants from molesting, interfering, or restricting in any way the appellees' right of use of the existing roadway. This decree was affirmed by this court, and modified to the extent that it was subject to certain conditions made by mutual agreement, i.e. the gate should be locked, the public would be kept out, and only the rebuilt road would be used.
Although the appellants claim confusion as to the court's findings and orders due to the lack of a written order after the 1983 contempt hearing, appellant, Hilda Warren, admitted that the Chancellor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re: Arkansas Rules Of Civil Procedure
...Ibid. For example. an order indefinitely suspending contempt sanctions amounts to a complete remission of the contempt. Warren v. Robinson. 288 Ark. 249. 253. 704 S.W.2d 614. 616-17 (1986); Stewartt v. State. 221 Ark. 496. 503. 254 S.W.2d 55. 59 (1953). When a contempt sanction is only part......
-
Dawson v. Temps Plus, Inc.
...of judicial power. See Tri-County Funeral Serv. v. Eddie Howard Funeral Home, 330 Ark. 789, 957 S.W.2d 694 (1997); Warren v. Robinson, 288 Ark. 249, 704 S.W.2d 614 (1986). We first observe that Temps Plus cites scarce legal authority in its brief to support this point and adduces no law on ......
-
Smith v. Smith, CA
...appellate court affirms a judgment finding criminal contempt unless there is no substantial evidentiary support. Warren v. Robinson, 288 Ark. 249, 252, 704 S.W.2d 614 (1986). See also, Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 295 Ark. 211, 748 S.W.2d 123 (1988), which also held the trial judge's decision sh......
-
Hart v. McChristian
...with the receiver's transfer of partnership control and, despite that order, purposefully interfered. See, e.g., Warren v. Robinson, 288 Ark. 249, 704 S.W.2d 614 (1986) (holding that court's order must be clear for one to be held in contempt for its violation). If an act interferes with the......