Breen v. Black

467 P.3d 1023

Theresia Renee BREEN f/k/a Theresia Renee Black, Appellant (Defendant),

v.Jamie Lee BLACK, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-19-0270

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 20, 2020

Representing Appellant: Letitia Abromats, Letitia C. Abromats, P.C., Greybull, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Robert J. O'Neil, Robert J. O'Neil, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

GRAY, Justice.

[¶1] Theresia Renee Breen (Mother), formerly Theresia Black, challenges the district court's order holding her in contempt for mishandling accounts held for the parties’ children and for failing to pay her share of the children's medical expenses. She also challenges the district court's award of attorney's fees to Jamie Lee Black (Father) and the denial of her W.R.C.P. 11 (Rule 11 ) motion for sanctions. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

ISSUES

[¶2] Mother raises five issues which we restate as four:

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it held Mother in contempt of court for mishandling one child's brokerage account and for failing to provide quarterly statements for four college accounts held for the children?

2. Did the district court err in holding Mother in contempt of court for failure to pay her share of the children's medical bills?

3. Did the district court err in awarding attorney's fees to Father?

4. Did the district court err in denying Mother's request for Rule 11 sanctions?

FACTS

[¶3] The parties divorced in 2008. The 2008 Amended Judgment and Decree of Divorce (2008 Decree) awarded primary custody of the parties’ four daughters to Mother. Relevant to this appeal, the decree addressed five accounts held for the benefit of the children—one brokerage account in the name of the parties’ daughter, A.T.B., and four college accounts, one for each child. The 2008 Decree provided that Mother should maintain the brokerage account held in the name of A.T.B. and the four college accounts. It also stated that Mother should provide Father with quarterly statements for each of the five accounts. The 2008 Decree valued A.T.B.’s brokerage account at $1,500¹ and the four college accounts combined at $5,366. Father was required to provide health care coverage for the children, and the parties were to share equally any uncovered medical expenses.

[¶4] In December 2012, the district court entered an Order Changing Custody, Order for Child Support, and Order as to Other Related Matters (2012 Order). Primary custody of the children transferred to Father. His obligation to provide health care coverage continued as did the parties’ obligation to share the uncovered medical costs equally. The provisions controlling the brokerage and college accounts were not modified.

[¶5] In 2014, the district court held Mother in contempt for failing to pay her share of uncovered medical expenses. The court also ordered Father to confirm his out-of-pocket medical expenses by providing Mother the Explanation of Benefits (EOB)² associated with any claim for reimbursement. After the 2014 order, if Father did not submit an EOB within six months of sending a claim for reimbursement, he forfeited his right to reimbursement. Mother challenged the 2014 contempt order on appeal. This Court upheld the contempt finding but reversed the judgment and remanded for recalculation of the amount owed to Father. Breen v. Black , 2015 WY 96, 353 P.3d 725 (Wyo. 2015).

[¶6] The controversy at issue here began in April 2019. Father filed a motion to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the 2008 Decree and the 2012 Order. Father claimed Mother cashed out A.T.B.’s brokerage account, did not provide quarterly statements for any of the five accounts, and again failed to pay her share of uncovered medical expenses. Mother denied these allegations. She asserted she had reimbursed A.T.B., pursuant to a settlement agreement with Father, fully resolving the claim regarding the brokerage account. She contended that at Father's request in November 2018, she had provided statements for all five accounts from 2005 or 2006 through the date of the request, and she continued to provide the quarterly statements. She also maintained she had paid her share of uncovered medical expenses. Mother sought Rule 11 sanctions against Father.

[¶7] After a show cause hearing on September 19, 2019, the district court entered an order holding Mother in civil contempt (2019 Order)³ for depleting A.T.B.’s brokerage account, for failing to provide quarterly reports for the brokerage account and the college accounts, and for failure to pay her share of uncovered medical expenses. The district court entered a judgment for Mother's share of the uncovered medical expenses in the amount of $7,164.90 but allowed Mother the opportunity to submit proof of previous payment to receive credit against the judgment. Mother was ordered to make monthly payments of at least $500, and if the judgment was paid in nine months, no interest would accrue. Mother's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was denied. By a later order, the district court awarded Father $3,235 in attorney's fees and $97.47 in costs. Mother timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶8] "District courts have both inherent and statutory authority to enforce their orders in domestic and other cases through contempt sanctions." Walker v. Walker , 2013 WY 132, ¶ 39, 311 P.3d 170, 178 (Wyo. 2013) ; Stephens v. Lavitt , 2010 WY 129, ¶¶ 18–19, 239 P.3d 634, 639 (Wyo. 2010) ; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(b). This Court does not interfere with an order holding a party in civil contempt of court in a domestic relations case "absent a serious procedural error, a violation of a principle of law, or a clear and grave abuse of discretion." Roberts v. Locke , 2013 WY 73, ¶ 14, 304 P.3d 116, 120 (Wyo. 2013). See also Munoz v. Munoz , 2002 WY 4, ¶ 6, 39 P.3d 390, 392 (Wyo. 2002) ; Olsen v. Olsen , 2013 WY 115, ¶ 33, 310 P.3d 888, 896 (Wyo. 2013). In reviewing the exercise of a district court's broad discretion under its contempt powers, we must determine whether the court reasonably could have concluded as it did. Roberts , ¶ 14, 304 P.3d at 120.

[¶9] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(b)⁴ specifically provides the district court authority to "award attorney's fees, costs and any other relief as the court may deem necessary under the circumstances" if it finds that the parent is in contempt of court. See Shindell v. Shindell , 2014 WY 51, ¶ 28, 322 P.3d 1270, 1278 (Wyo. 2014). We review the final attorney fee award for abuse of discretion. Mueller v. Zimmer , 2007 WY 195, ¶ 11, 173 P.3d 361, 364 (Wyo. 2007) ; Evans v. Moyer , 2012 WY 111, ¶ 37, 282 P.3d 1203, 1214 (Wyo. 2012).

DISCUSSION

I. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it held Mother in contempt of court for mishandling one child's brokerage account and for failing to provide quarterly statements for four college accounts held for the children?

[¶10] Mother contends that the district court erred in finding her in contempt for liquidating A.T.B.’s brokerage account because she paid A.T.B. $1000 in full compliance with a settlement agreement before the show cause motion was filed. She argues the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce a party to comply with a court order and that no coercive purpose was served when the money had been previously reimbursed. Mother similarly argues the district court erred in finding her in contempt for failing to provide Father quarterly statements for the five accounts. Mother provided Father all required quarterly statements when he requested them in November 2018, and she continued to submit quarterly reports thereafter. Mother also asserts the divorce decree did not require quarterly statements but used only "precatory" language—Mother should provide quarterly statements. As a result, she claimed the divorce decree was not clear, specific, and unambiguous, as required for a contempt finding. Mother's compliance with the 2008 Decree prior to the filing of the motion to show cause is dispositive, and we do not address her claim on the precatory language.

[¶11] To establish civil contempt, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) there was an effective court order requiring certain conduct by the alleged contemnor; 2) the contemnor had knowledge of the order; and 3) the alleged contemnor willfully disobeyed the order. Kleinpeter v. Kleinpeter , 2017 WY 76, ¶¶ 10–11, 397 P.3d 189, 193 (Wyo. 2017) ; JLK v. MAB , 2016 WY 73, ¶ 20–21, 375 P.3d 1108, 1113 (Wyo. 2016) ; Bullock v. Bullock , 2014 WY 131, ¶ 17, 336 P.3d 136, 141 (Wyo. 2014) ; Meckem v. Carter , 2014 WY 52, ¶ 20, 323 P.3d 637, 644 (Wyo. 2014). "In order to find a willful violation, the order violated must be ‘clear, specific and unambiguous.’ " JLK , ¶ 21, 375 P.3d at 1113 (quoting Greene v. Finn , 2007 WY 47, ¶ 14, 153 P.3d 945, 951 (Wyo. 2007) ).

[¶12] A civil contempt order must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. McAdam v. McAdam , 2014 WY 123, ¶ 14, 335 P.3d 466, 470 (Wyo. 2014) ; Shindell , ¶ 10, 322 P.3d at 1274. "Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that would persuade a finder of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable." Shindell , ¶ 10, 322 P.3d at 1274. Once the elements of contempt are proven, the burden then shifts to the person charged with contempt to show he or she was unable to comply. Kleinpeter , ¶ 10, 397 P.3d at 193 ; JLK , ¶ 20, 375 P.3d at 1113 (quoting Bullock , ¶ 17, 336 P.3d at 141 ).

[¶13] Here, the district court found:

7. That Defendant is in civil contempt of court for willfully violating the terms and conditions of the above-referenced Amended Judgment And Decree Of Divorce by removing all of the money from the above-referenced entry entitled "[A.T.B.]’s Edward Jones Custodial Account No. ...";

8. That the parties have reached an accord and satisfaction as to the money that Defendant wrongfully withdrew from the above-referenced entry entitled "[A.T.B.]’s Edward Jones

...